A Question for Creationists

[Archaeopteryx]

I dare say a lot more than what the Bible says about it being wished into existence!

To quote Aron Ra: "Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything."

 

[AV1611VET]

It was made in China. We bought it from Wal*Mart.

Ouch!

 

[KWCrazy]

I joined this forum years ago as a Christian. My first posts were made as a Christian. My first posts were about Christianity. Moreover, contrary to what you might think, my primary purpose in being here isn't to undermine the faith of Christians. I'm here for discussion with Christians and non-Christians alike.

Firstly, I have no idea what your history is and I don't see it as particularly relevant because I'm not addressing the issue on a personal level; but rather as the point of view of an internet poster. Who you are as a person and where you are in your personal life's journey is a matter for private discussion or no discussion at all. This is an internet forum, and we're discussing issues.

The issue at hand is this; a person who claims they were once a Christian and had a personal relationship with God now proclaims that there is no God and invests his time on a Christian forum trying to convince other Christians not to believe. This is the position with which we take issue.

A person cannot go from knowing God to knowing He doesn't exist. Either he never knew God or for whatever reason he is lying to himself and others about God's existence. There simply is no other option. Either God exists or he doesn't. Either you knew Him or you didn't. From what you are saying you THOUGHT you knew Him. That means you never knew Him.

This is relevant because your claim is NOT unique. I've already encountered at least a dozen "former Christians." Many of them were simply outright lying because they thought it strengthened their argument to have been "taken in" by religion until they "saw the light" of atheism. This is why we ask questions. Given two contradictory views we seek clarification. People lie on the internet. Moreover, they lie to themselves. As Christians, we are here to support other Christians and to spread the truth of salvation to others. For this reason we address positions such as yours to help determine if someone simply needs support because their faith is waning of if they are merely another poser with the express purpose of harassing believers.

I am a creationist; not because that's what I was taught; but because that's what my own searching has discovered. We are not masses of ignorant, poorly educated people. I went to college on a scholarship, met graduation requirements on my entrance exam, and graduated on the Dean's List. Many on this forum are well educated people who believe in the Scriptures not as some superstitious belief but because they have felt and experienced the glory of God. They have learned that the great truth of the universe is that God is the Lord of the universe; and that Jesus Christ is His son.

Things you believe may change, but truths you know endure. We know that God is real and we support those people who need reassurance. We are also ever vigilant for the wolves in sheep's clothing who come here to devour the weak in faith. Only you know what category you're in personally. I sincerely hope that if you ever had faith that you would again find it again. If you've never believed God's answers, then perhaps you've been asking the wrong questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

To quote Aron Ra: "Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything."

He's one to talk.

I asked him several (?) times here what Satan's angelic name was, and he wouldn't tell me.

(I suspected he was too proud too, though.)

 

[mzungu]

He's one to talk.

I asked him several (?) times here what Satan's angelic name was, and he wouldn't tell me.

(I suspected he was too proud too, though.)

Hmmm. Perhaps the Devil tied his tongue!

 

[KWCrazy]

Hmmm. Perhaps the Devil tied his tongue!

Do you believe there is a devil?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hmmm. Perhaps the Devil tied his tongue!

As fast as he talks, that must be some knot!

 

[mzungu]

As fast as he talks, that must be some knot!

Never underestimate the Devil's knot tying capabilities!

 

[lasthero]

All transitional species would be more vulnerable and more likely to die.

What? No. On what do you base this logic? Transitional fossils like archaeopteryx are no more 'vulnerable' than the theropods it evolved from or the birds it evolved into. Nothing about being a transitional means it's 'more vulnerable'.

Fossils are caused by living creatures or very recently dead creature being encased in sediment under great pressure / time (they are a continuum; increase pressure, decrease time). A global flood would account for the fossil record including fossils in the peaks of mountains and in deserts.

Floods aren't the only things that can and have buried something quickly - landslides, mudslides, et cetera can do the trick as well. But even if that wasn't the case, there are more parsimonious explanations for both of those instances.

We don't see any partially developed features, only fully formed creature with no apparent ancestor or descendant. They are arranged in a timeline based on where they look like they should fit according to the theory.

I think the problem is that you don't actually understand what a transitional fossil is supposed to be. Any transitional is going to be a fully developed, functioning creature in itself - what makes it transitional is that it has features that show transition from one to the next. For instance, archaeopteryx has features that are exclusively avian - feathers, an opposable toe, an elongated pubis, to name a few - and it has features that are exclusively reptile - long, bony tail, slender ribs, a flexible wrist joint, to name a few. However, it was a fully developed, functioning creature.

Also, they're not just arranged in a timeline to fit a theory, they're arranged in the order that their found through the layers and by their dates, which match up with their development.

If they lived, they died. If they died, we should see at least one fossil. There are none.

There are scads.

(A few) transitional fossils

Archeopteryx is a mosaic; like a platypus.

A platypus is not a 'mosaic', and the two aren't even close to being alike. The platypus possesses absolutely nothing that doesn't appear in other mammals, and it has features that only resemble things from other species - it's bill only LOOKS like a duck, but it's composed differently and works different; it's tails LOOKS like a beavers, but it's composed differently and serves a completely different purpose.

Archeopteryx (and other transitionals) had features that no bird has and no reptile has. They don't just look like these features, they are these features. It's not even remotely comparable to a platypus.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Firstly, I have no idea what your history is and I don't see it as particularly relevant because I'm not addressing the issue on a personal level; but rather as the point of view of an internet poster. Who you are as a person and where you are in your personal life's journey is a matter for private discussion or no discussion at all. This is an internet forum, and we're discussing issues.

The issue at hand is this; a person who claims they were once a Christian and had a personal relationship with God now proclaims that there is no God and invests his time on a Christian forum trying to convince other Christians not to believe. This is the position with which we take issue.

A person cannot go from knowing God to knowing He doesn't exist. Either he never knew God or for whatever reason he is lying to himself and others about God's existence. There simply is no other option. Either God exists or he doesn't. Either you knew Him or you didn't. From what you are saying you THOUGHT you knew Him. That means you never knew Him.

This is relevant because your claim is NOT unique. I've already encountered at least a dozen "former Christians." Many of them were simply outright lying because they thought it strengthened their argument to have been "taken in" by religion until they "saw the light" of atheism. This is why we ask questions. Given two contradictory views we seek clarification. People lie on the internet. Moreover, they lie to themselves. As Christians, we are here to support other Christians and to spread the truth of salvation to others. For this reason we address positions such as yours to help determine if someone simply needs support because their faith is waning of if they are merely another poser with the express purpose of harassing believers.

I am a creationist; not because that's what I was taught; but because that's what my own searching has discovered. We are not masses of ignorant, poorly educated people. I went to college on a scholarship, met graduation requirements on my entrance exam, and graduated on the Dean's List. Many on this forum are well educated people who believe in the Scriptures not as some superstitious belief but because they have felt and experienced the glory of God. They have learned that the great truth of the universe is that God is the Lord of the universe; and that Jesus Christ is His son.

Things you believe may change, but truths you know endure. We know that God is real and we support those people who need reassurance. We are also ever vigilant for the wolves in sheep's clothing who come here to devour the weak in faith. Only you know what category you're in personally. I sincerely hope that if you ever had faith that you would again find it again. If you've never believed God's answers, then perhaps you've been asking the wrong questions.

I would agree completely. Once you know, you know. There is no doubt that can come any longer. Doubt without knowledge is probable, knowledge casts out all doubt. It is a given.

 

[Loudmouth]

Chihuahuas and wolves can stare each other in the face.

Americans and Europeans can stare each other in the face.

Me and my cousins can stare our common anc... oh, wait ... nevermind.

Chimps and humans can stare each other in the face.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fossils are caused by living creatures or very recently dead creature being encased in sediment under great pressure / time (they are a continuum; increase pressure, decrease time). A global flood would account for the fossil record including fossils in the peaks of mountains and in deserts.

None of those require a global flood. Uplift of seabed by tectonic forces over millions of years already explains the fossils at the top of mountains. No global flood is needed for animals to be buried in sediment.

All transitional species would be more vulnerable and more likely to die.

Evidence?

We don't see any partially developed features, only fully formed creature with no apparent ancestor or descendant.

Then why doesn't this mudskipper have fully formed legs?

It moves about and lives on land, and yet it doesn't have fully formed legs and doesn't even have lungs. If this isn't half formed, then what would be?

A flying squirrel does not have fully formed wings. Why doesn't that fit your criteria? A lungfish has a lung, but is not very capable on land. Why doesn't that fit your criteria?

They are arranged in a timeline based on where they look like they should fit according to the theory.

They are arranged in a timeline based on the isotope ratios of the rocks above and below the fossil.

If they lived, they died. If they died, we should see at least one fossil. There are none.

So you have seached the entire fossil record on Earth?

Archeopteryx is a mosaic; like a platypus. It wasn't a transitional anything. It was a fully formed beast without known predecessor or ancestor.

That is the very definition of a transitional, a mosaic of features from two divergent taxa.

 

[bhsmte]

How does it not?

All life forms are made from similar elements at a similar time using the same blueprint for life; perfectly suited for their environments? Symbiotic relationships that could have only been simultaneously created? A Cambrian Explosion that completely invalidates evolution and a fossil record that points to a global flood, and that shows absolutely no partially developed; partially evolved species? Irreducible complexity of organs and complex DNA even in the oldest species ever to exist? Sterility and death resulting from excessive deviance from the norm? Benevolent mutations a mere fantasy better suited for Marvel Comics than actual testable biology?

If evolution were introduced today, it would be laughed out of existence.

I don't get your last sentence. Evolution is accepted by the scientific community today because of the evidence to support it. Yet, you claim it would be laughed out of existence. Based on what exactly?

 

[KWCrazy]

None of those require a global flood.

However, a global flood could leave millions of fossils.

Uplift of seabed by tectonic forces over millions of years already explains the fossils at the top of mountains.

So does a global flood 4,500 years ago.

Evidence?

A fierce dinosaur transitions to a bird that can fly away. In between are less fierce dinosaurs that can't fly; in other words, food! Transition to a less fierce animal defies natural selection because each generation would be less fit.

Dinosaur to bird evolution began when someone saw a drawing of a dinosaur and thought it looked like a chicken. Viola! A theory is born.

Then why doesn't this mudskipper have fully formed legs?

Because then it would be a frog, wouldn't it?

It moves about and lives on land, and yet it doesn't have fully formed legs and doesn't even have lungs. If this isn't half formed, then what would be?

And yet, it has complex DNA, it can reproduce, and it's well designed to live in its environment. It can survive on land for a time, but it breaths through gills. It is in itself a remarkable creation, but it will transition only to other mudskippers. It isn't half formed at all. It's a product of perfect design.

A flying squirrel does not have fully formed wings.

It doesn't have wings at all. It has a furry, stretchy membrane that stretches between their front and back legs. They don't fly. They glide. They've been known to glide for nearly 90 meters, but if you tossed one out of a Cessna it would probably glide a lot further.

A lungfish has a lung, but is not very capable on land. Why doesn't that fit your criteria?

Because it's a fish that was created for a very specific environment. It can breathe through gills or through lungs. How is that anything other than a testament to the glory of its creator?

 

[lasthero]

So does a global flood 4,500 years ago.

What specific fossils have been found on mountaintops?

Dinosaur to bird evolution began when someone saw a drawing of a dinosaur and thought it looked like a chicken. Viola! A theory is born.

Someone? Who is someone?

 

[keith99]

A fierce dinosaur transitions to a bird that can fly away. In between are less fierce dinosaurs that can't fly; in other words, food! Transition to a less fierce animal defies natural selection because each generation would be less fit.

Were all dinosaurs large carnivores? Oh that right they weren't. Either all large and or carnivores.

 

[Loudmouth]

However, a global flood could leave millions of fossils.

Would couldn't a global flood leave? What features would a geologic formation need to have in order to falsify a recent global flood?

So does a global flood 4,500 years ago.

No, it doesn't. A global flood lasting one year could not make the hundreds of feet of fossil bearing limestone found at the top of mountains. That requires long time periods.

A fierce dinosaur transitions to a bird that can fly away. In between are less fierce dinosaurs that can't fly; in other words, food!

Is this bird food?

How about this one? It doesn't even have wings.

Transition to a less fierce animal defies natural selection because each generation would be less fit.

Evidence please.

Dinosaur to bird evolution began when someone saw a drawing of a dinosaur and thought it looked like a chicken. Viola! A theory is born.

It happened when they found fossils that had a mixture of features from dinosaurs and modern birds. Why do you have to tell lies like the one above?

Because then it would be a frog, wouldn't it?

So you admit that it isn't a fully formed frog?

And yet, it has complex DNA, it can reproduce, and it's well designed to live in its environment.

And all that without being fully formed.

It's a product of perfect design.

How can you say that when it isn't fully formed?

It doesn't have wings at all. It has a furry, stretchy membrane that stretches between their front and back legs. They don't fly.

You mean they can't fly just like those dino to bird transitionals? And they are still able to survive? They can still find a niche that they are well adapted to?

You are disproving your own arguments.

Because it's a fish that was created for a very specific environment. It can breathe through gills or through lungs. How is that anything other than a testament to the glory of its creator?

How is that fully formed?

 

[KWCrazy]

Were all dinosaurs large carnivores? Oh that right they weren't. Either all large and or carnivores.

Paleontologist Jack Horner in 2003 unearthed a Tyrannosaurus rex that lived 68 million years ago in Montana and recovered a still-elastic blood vessel from inside a fractured thigh bone fossil. Recent phylogenetic analyses of this isolated tissue by a team of scientists reveals that the closest living relative of T. rex is none other than the domestic chicken. Of seven decoded amino acid sequences from the collagen molecules, three matched chicken uniquely. Another matched frog uniquely, one matched newt uniquely, and a few matched multiple sequences.

 

[lasthero]

Paleontologist Jack Horner in 2003 unearthed a Tyrannosaurus rex that lived 68 million years ago in Montana and recovered a still-elastic blood vessel from inside a fractured thigh bone fossil. Recent phylogenetic analyses of this isolated tissue by a team of scientists reveals that the closest living relative of T. rex is none other than the domestic chicken. Of seven decoded amino acid sequences from the collagen molecules, three matched chicken uniquely. Another matched frog uniquely, one matched newt uniquely, and a few matched multiple sequences.

Just because an animal is smaller and less fierce doesn't mean it's less fit. In an environment with scarce food, an animal like a T. Rex would be less fit than smaller animals. Also, flight isn't the only advantage brought on by feathers. They also aid in thermoregulation. Just because an animal can't fly doesn't mean it's feathers give no advantage

 

[Split Rock]

Archeopteryx is a mosaic; like a platypus. It wasn't a transitional anything. It was a fully formed beast without known predecessor or ancestor.

A mosaic is more than one fossil together, like Archaeoraptor. Both Archaeopteryx and our friend the platypus are species with intermediate or transitional features. Archaeopteryx is intermediate between modern birds and theropod dinosaurs, while the platypus is a mammal that retains some reptilian features, such as egg laying. The eggs are leatherly reptilian eggs, btw, not avian. The bill only resembles a duck's bill and is soft with the mouth on the bottom. The bill itself is a highly derived feature unique to the type.

Interesting that you mentioned the platypus, which is a good example of a mammal that is semi-aquatic much like the earliest whale ancestors must have been. And guess what? It actually does have webbed feet! Imagine that....

Oh btw, whatever does "fully formed" mean? If the platypus evolved into a more aquatic species in the future, would the modern platypus no longer be "fully formed?"