Right. But it lasted longer than 7 days. There are plenty of people with interpretations of Gen 1 that involve long days or a gap. But the LCMS statement rejects those.
Upvote
0
Christianity, Faith, and Evolution
- Thread starter Paradox.79
- Start date
Not sure which you’re asking about. I agree with the OP. The Big Bang and evolution are obvious. They are inconsistent with the kind of conservative exegesis that the LCMS is based on.
Upvote
0
FaithT
Well-Known Member
- Dec 1, 2019
- 2,413
- 697
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I’m just really mixed up right now. I’m a former Catholic who, as you may know, are on the ball when it comes to science but left for the LCMS due to sheer boredom. The music at my new church is really good but I don’t know if I can keep going to a church that believes in a young earth.
Upvote
0
FaithT
Well-Known Member
- Dec 1, 2019
- 2,413
- 697
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I don’t know if I should stay where I am and just disagree with some of the LCMS teachings, or return to the CC and disagree on some of their teachings. Like indulgences?
OTOH Holy Communion feels more like the Eucharist at the CC as compared to the Lutheran church.
OTOH Holy Communion feels more like the Eucharist at the CC as compared to the Lutheran church.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
There are many Lutheran churches with excellent liturgy. It probably depends upon the specific congregation. You might want to look around. Generally the churches that don’t have conservative views on the Bible also accept gays. If you’re OK with that, Episcopal and some ELCA churches will have good liturgy. A few PCUSA as well, but it’s less common.
Upvote
0
Among Protestant churches there's a strong connection between attitudes towards science, social policy and gender/sexual issues. When they're conservative on one they tend to be on all.When they're liberal on one they're liberal on all. The Catholic Church is the main body that is liberal on science and social policy and conservative on gender/sexual issues.
As a Catholic, is indulgences really a big deal? I know they are theoretically still allowed, but I didn't get the sense it was very common.
As a Catholic, is indulgences really a big deal? I know they are theoretically still allowed, but I didn't get the sense it was very common.
Upvote
0
DaveISBA
Active Member
- Mar 1, 2020
- 243
- 103
- 75
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Evolutionists love to throw around the idea of speciation. What is it's definition and how is it observed?
"Kind", a term used in the Bible, is a designation the living God has used to separate the different categories of living organisms! If you have an argument about the use of the term, I suggest you take it up with God!
Also "kind" according to the (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon) as translated from the "Jewish-Aramaic מִינָא, species"
I understand why! Because it never happened!
The scientific definition "evolution", if you mean Darwin's TOE, is meaningless because it is not observed by those who look for the evidence! Not even by one who proposed the idea! Darwin in his book (On the Origin of Species): "...new varieties continually take the place of and exterminate their parent-form has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (My emphasis)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 26,083
- 11,394
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Some creationists are honest enough to admit that it's a fact...
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
...
Nine out of ten species alive today have arisen in the last 200,000 years, according to a genetic study looking at select portions of DNA from 100,000 species.
Speciation
How does AIG reconcile this with their denial of evolution? They simply claim that evolution of new species, genera, and families is "not real evolution."
No. "Kind", in the Bible, is used generically to describe different things. Species, gender of humans, styles of furniture, types of food, ...(long list). It's not what you were told. If you have an argument about the use of the term, I suggest you take it up with God.
Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. Most creationist organizations have redefined "evolution" to mean "evolution so great that no one could possibly live long enough to see it." And everyone understands why. However, the scientific definition remains.
It's directly observed. Sometimes, surprisingly great changes happen in a relatively short time. For example, a population of lizards, moved to a new island with different environment, evolved a new digestive organ in a few decades. Would you like to learn about that?
That's wrong, too. Darwin's description was "descent with modification", and there are many, many such cases that have been observed. Would you like to see some of those?
I filled in the deleted part of the quote, which creationists generally remove, to make it appear that Darwin doubted his theory. Turns out, Darwin was right about that, as well. Here's an honest and informed YE Creationist, regarding the huge number of transitional fossils:
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 phenacodontids32 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 be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms (my emphasis)
I'm not accusing you of dishonesty. In all likelihood, you were handed that quote from someone else, who correctly guessed that you had never read the book, and would then be fooled into believing that falsehood.
Be very careful about Darwin quotes. There are many out there like this one. Always check the original, if you don't want to be used by those guys.
Darwin was completely right. When I first studied biology, we were lacking transitional forms for:
Land animals and whales
Reptiles and birds
Reptiles and mammals
Australopithecines and modern humans
Anapsids and turtles
Primitive amphibians and frogs
Fish and tetrapods
Roaches and termites
(long list)
Today, we have all of those. Dr. Wise alludes to some of them.
Upvote
0
DaveISBA
Active Member
- Mar 1, 2020
- 243
- 103
- 75
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
In Genesis chapter One there is a law of God that is stated at least ten times that everything God has created will produce after its own kind. The kinds of living organisms are fixed!
What did the lizards evolve into? They are still lizards and have been throughout the history of their existence! The oldest lizard fossil, claimed to be 240 million years old, looks like a modern day lizard! In light of it's fossil history to suggest that lizards would change into something that is not recognized as a lizard is pure imagination!
"The first confirmed occurrence of Baragwanathia is in Australian rocks This discovery suggests that the lycopsids were the first lineage of land plants to evolve tracheids, true leaves, and a large stature. It also implies that the evolutionary split between lycopsids" Baragwanathia | fossil plant genus After Baragwanathia first appearance there is no evidence it evolved into lycopods because it went extinct! The same can be said of all your examples that are claimed to be intermediates! They appear with no evolutionary history and either still exist or go extinct and as Darwin admitted, it "does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain"
The oldest fossil of a whale is already fully aquatic! The horse series just variations of the original, were and are still horses! The same with camels, elephants, pigs, and primates! hominid? Humans and primates are a separate group!
Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist and paleontologist , "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade": MacLean's, p. 56.) "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God."
Darwin, You and Wise are completely wrong and contradicted by a number of researchers and paleontologists that are to numerous to list here but I'll add to the list I've already started!
David M. Raup was a University of Chicago paleontologist. Raup studied the fossil record and the diversity of life on Earth. In his book (Scientists Confront Creationism) p.156 he wrote: “Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups. Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of the that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail.”
Those on your list are still lacking transitional forms!
From Phys.org a science, research and technology news service (not a creationist site) who's readership include 1.75 mil scientists. An article dated Feb 19, 2013: ” Evolutionary stasis is an alternative scientific interpretation to the widely accepted Neo-Darwinism. It means that most species show little evolutionary change through history, instead, evolution occurs more abruptly and it can result in one species becoming two different species. The theory originated among paleontologists who study fossils. They found that no intermediate forms of fossils exist.” https://phys.org/news/2013-02-species-sudden.html
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 26,083
- 11,394
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
No. It does not say that. Read it carefully...
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
It says living things were created according to their kind, not that they reproduce according to their kind. And it doesn't say how, other than God used natural things to do it. So AIG is quite right about that; speciation is a fact. They even accept new genera, and sometimes new families.
Sorry, that's demonstrably wrong. Even most creationists now acknowledge the fact.
It's directly observed. Sometimes, surprisingly great changes happen in a relatively short time. For example, a population of lizards, moved to a new island with different environment, evolved a new digestive organ in a few decades. Would you like to learn about that?
A different kind of lizard, with a new digestive organ, larger heads, and changed behaviors.
No, you're wrong about that, too. Lizards gave rise to snakes. We have transitional fossils between lizards and snakes as well as some transitional forms today. There are still snakes with vestigial lizard legs. Would you like to learn about those?
Nope. Ambulocetus, for example, had legs, and could walk about on land. There are, as your fellow creationists admit many such transitional whales in the record now.
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 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.
YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise ibid
Nope. The first identifiable ancestor of the horse lacks any of the characteristics of modern horses. It is one of the relatively few cases of intraspecies evolutionary transitionals. You see, a smooth continuum of transitionals would require gradual evolution over a very long time, which evidence shows is not common. Typically, a new species occurs in a small population in an isolated area, with a very different evironment. So the usual case is relatively rapid speciation, followed by stasis, something Darwin pointed out. The problem for creationists, as Raup makes clear, is not that every transitional line has intraspecies transitions,but that such transitions do sometimes exist. If creationism were true, there would be no such cases.
[quote[The theory originated among paleontologists who study fossils. They found that no intermediate forms of fossils exist.”[/quote]
Gould easily disposes of that belief:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory
When even knowledgeable creationists admit freely that there are many transitional forms and series of forms, which are "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory", there really no point in denying the fact.
And it's not just those numerous transitions. Evolutionary theory predicts that the genes of organisms will show common ancestry. And when we were able to look at that and compare, that prediction was verified.
And biochemically, we see the same things. In highly-conserved molecules like cytochrome C, the variations in the amino acid sequences of the protein sort out in a sequence, that also shows evolutionary relationships.
The Evolutionary Significance of Cytochrome c (OpenStax Biology 2e)
Cytochrome c is an important component of the electron transport chain, a part of cellular respiration, and it is normally located in the cellular organelle, the mitochondrion. This protein has a heme prosthetic group, and the heme’s central ion alternately reduces and oxidizes during electron transfer. Because this essential protein’s role in producing cellular energy is crucial, it has changed very little over millions of years. Protein sequencing has shown that there is a considerable amount of cytochrome c amino acid sequence homology among different species. In other words, we can assess evolutionary kinship by measuring the similarities or differences among various species’ DNA or protein sequences.
The Evolutionary Significance of Cytochrome c - Chromoscience
Homologous structures, like reptile jaw bones and mammalian ear bones indicate common descent. And there are transitional fossils between reptiles and mammals, showing the transition. Would you like me to show you that?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
DaveISBA
Active Member
- Mar 1, 2020
- 243
- 103
- 75
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Read my reply carefully! I said in Genesis chapter One only! Most translations say in Genesis 1:24 "Then God said “Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that crawl, and the wildlife of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so."
A variation of the original lizard yet still a lizard! who have remained recognizably lizards for what is claimed to be 240 million years! A 240-million-year-old fossil is now the oldest known ancestor of snakes and lizards — and experts are calling it a 'Rosetta Stone' of evolution The 'Rosetta stone' of lizard evolution: "After dating the fossil, researchers debated whether the Megachirella fossil was actually a true lizard because of its surprising age. To find out, the study's authors conducted a CT scan of the fossil. Its head, wrist, and shoulder features matches up with those of modern reptiles"
A 'transitional fossil' debunked: "The origin of snakes from lizard-like precursors with paired limbs has long been a controversial subject. This reflects the lack of fossils and conflicting results from phylogenetic assessments using molecules and anatomy..."
"Recently a team of researchers led by Michael W. Caldwell (University of Alberta) has carefully re-examined the only known fossil of Tetrapodophis. They found that this reptile lacks many key features of snakes in its skull and vertebral column. Instead its long skull has large eye sockets and its teeth are not recurved, unlike those of snakes."https://phys.org/news/2016-10-transitional-fossil-debunked.html
Ambulocetus had a long tail, powerful forelimbs and hindlimbs that were designed to walk on land. Also since it went extinct it could not be transforming into a whale!
Of course there's an explanation! The flood layers were not laid down over millions of years so there was no Cenozoic period! The layers of the flood were laid down over a period of about a year! The fossil record is a record of a catastrophic worldwide watery event that buried untold billions or trillions of living organisms!
Leonard Harrison Matthews FRS was a British zoologist, especially known for his research and writings on marine mammals The Natural History of the Whale, pg. 23 "...we have no certain knowledge of their origin [the cetaceans], for the earliest-known fossils from the Eocene are already unmistakably whales, and we can only guess at their evolutionary history by inference."
Raup did give an example of what's touted to be, one of best, examples of a transitional in Archaeopteryx but when examined it was exposed as a total fraud! There are no cases of transitional forms observed in the fossil record only claims! if Darwin's TOE were true, as he even admitted, there should be an enormous amount of them not just a few or not observed!
Niles Eldredge (Myths of human evolution) p. 45-46) "Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis-that evolutionary change gradual and progressive would be vindicated. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]! he used the word Kinds!
Well then either he is confused or talking out of both sides of his mouth because in the book below he declares:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, "Evolution, Erratic"
Why would I want to admit to something that researchers, who look for transitional forms, say thy don't find?
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, PhD, an American physical anthropologist and professor of biological anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, (Sudden Origins): p. 8p
"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from
the less to more evolved....Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species."
All this is meaningless in light of the what can be seen which indicates there is no observable evidence in the fossil record, when there should be an enormous amount, for Darwin's TOE!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 26,083
- 11,394
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
So it doesn't say that they reproduce according to kinds after all. That was my point.
In about 20 years, the evolution of a new kind of lizard. Pretty quick. A new order of organisms would take a much longer time. The fossil record suggests tens of millions of years for that kind of thing.
Our order, the primates, is much more ancient, nearly 65 million years. The earliest true primate was in the trees long before the squamates (lizards) evolved. And yet, we still have primates. Why would that surprise you?
Actually, they were greatly modified to live in water. It could still walk on land, but the large hindfeet were adapted to swimming. This is the reason that whales swim with an up-and-down movement, rather than the side-to-side movement of fish. Ambulocetus, and other early whales were adapted to swim with a sort of galloping movement that we see in running mammals.
And that happened because of the diaphragm. It allowed mammals to run and breathe at the same time unlike other tetrapods that move move side to side, in order to fill and expel air from lungs.
No one knows precisely which species gave rise to more advanced transitional whales like Dorudon. But it could have been one of the species of Ambulocetus.
He's talking about intraspecific transitionals. And it's not common to find evolutionary transitionals within a species, for reasons we've discussed. However, they do exist, and that rules out creationism. If creationism is right, there wouldn't be any.
So someone outside the field of paleontology disagrees with paleontologists? Hardly news. But as you learned, he's wrong. Even your fellow YE creationist admits that there are many, many transitional forms in the fossil record. Let's test Jeffrey's assumption. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional form. You're on.
(Evidence showing that genetics, biochemistry, homology, and other evidence confirms the numerous transitional forms in the fossils record)
Well, let's take another look at what your fellow YE creationist says about that:
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 phenacodontids32 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's not deniable. It's a fact you'll have to face and find a way to accommodate it in your beliefs.
But do give us two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, so we can see if there's a transitional for them. What would you like to pick?
Upvote
0
DaveISBA
Active Member
- Mar 1, 2020
- 243
- 103
- 75
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
The implication is that If God's Creations are producing offspring they will be reproducing after there kind! The proof is in the pudding unless you're suggesting, for instance, right after the Creation cattle produced something other than cattle? I think Britannica gets it! "Reproduction, process by which organisms replicate themselves. Reproduction is one of the most important concepts in biology: it means making a copy" reproduction | Definition, Examples, Types, Importance, & Facts
It's...still a lizard! Suggesting over time it will become a non-lizard is not backed up by it's claimed 240 year history of staying a lizard and is your pure imagination!
Your whole premise is all wrong! God did not create primate nearly 65 million years nor lizards after!
Ambulocetus walked on land! Based on its skeletal proportions, it has been suggested that Ambulocetus moved through the water much like an otter. But that's just more evolution's presupposition, speculation and imagination! Ambulocetus like all the rest of the claims appears, with no evolutionary history, abruptly in the fossil record then goes extinct without changing into something else!
That because whale evolution never occurred! What is actually observed, according to the oldest whale fossils, whales appear abruptly in the fossil record and fully formed! Everything else is pure imagination!
Before Darwin went on to show examples of common (Homologous) structures within living organisms he made this disclaimer! Darwin's Origin of Species: second British edition (1860), page 434
“Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or by the doctrine of final causes. The hopelessness of the attempt has been expressly admitted by Owen in his most interesting work on the 'Nature of Limbs.' On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is;— that it has
it has ..all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniformly regulated plan: but this not a scientific explanation"
Last edited:
Upvote
0
DaveISBA
Active Member
- Mar 1, 2020
- 243
- 103
- 75
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Charles Darwin, naturalist, geologist, biologist but not a paleontologist! So someone outside the field of paleontology! So we need to dis his writings! Anyway as you learned, he's wrong.
Well, lets take a look at what your fellow evolutionists have to says about that!
George Gaylord, was perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, and a major participant in the modern evolutionary synthesis. (Tempo and Mode in Evolution): "This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals...The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed...This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate...it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants”
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 26,083
- 11,394
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
It doesn't say that. It's your interpretation of His word, not His actual word.
According to AIG, the "cattle kind" produced all sorts of other species and genera. This was necessary to make the story the Ark plausible. Otherwise, not enough room.
Just a different kind of lizard. Pretty much like humans are a different kind of primate. What's surprising in the case of the lizard, was how fast it evolved into a different population. About 20 years. But that fits Darwin's observations and the punctuated equilibrium model.
It comes down to evidence. And as you see, even YE creationist familiar with the evidence, admit that the evidence does support evolution and an ancient Earth.
Actually, it spent most of its time in fresh water. The oxygen isotope ratios in the bones shows that it was aquatic, not marine.
The flipper-formed hind feet show that it swam by using the normal mammalian mode of movement. This explains why whales swim with the same up-and-down motion, rather than side-to-side as fish do.
Your fellow YE creationists disagree:
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 one- third 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.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise.
(Evidence showing that genetics, biochemistry, homology, and other evidence confirms the numerous transitional forms in the fossils record)
And here's the rest of that statement, the part they hid from you:
The explanation is to a large extent simple on the theory of the selection of successive slight modifications,- each modification being profitable in some way to the modified form, but often
affecting by correlation other parts of the organisation. In changes of this nature, there will be little or no tendency to alter the original pattern, or to transpose the parts. The bones of a limb might be shortened and flattened to any extent, becoming at the same time enveloped in thick membrane, so as to serve as a fin; or a webbed hand might have all its bones, or certain bones, lengthened to any extent, with the membrane connecting them increased, so as to serve as a wing; yet all these would not tend to alter the framework of the bones or the relative connection of the parts. If we suppose that an early progenitor- the archetype as it may be called- of all mammals, birds, and reptiles, had its limbs constructed on the existing general pattern, for whatever purpose they served, we can at once perceive the plain signification of the homologous construction of the limbs throughout the class.
Darwin is right. It makes no design sense that the same bones are in bat wings, whale flippers, horse legs, and human arms. Nor are they examples of optimal design. As the part of the quote you read shows, Owen admitted that there is no way to explain this in creationist terms. As Darwin shows, it's a consequence of common descent.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 26,083
- 11,394
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Actually, that's wrong. The name is George Gaylord Simpson, and he wrote this about 40 years ago. As you learned, we have since found all those transitional forms your fellow YE Creationist admits are "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
Note though, that even in Simpson's time there were a few cases of close transitionals. That's why Simpson admits that the case was not universal, but almost so. Again, the fact of transitionals even then ruled out creationism.
Again, I'm pretty sure you didn't make the error in Simpson's name. I doubt if you actually read the book from which this was taken, and more likely, the people who gave you that edited quote just messed up on his name.
But let's test this idea. Give me any two major groups,said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if we have a transitional form. There still are a few of them for which transitionals have not been found. So you might get lucky. What would you like to me to show?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
