Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So Jesus is literally a door?
You thought the Bible taught that!? Ha
Barbarian observes:
Not for Christians. Most of us accept that His word is consistent with the things we see in nature.
We do not see in nature one genus changing to another, one phyla or family or order.
We do not see creatures accumulating millions of micromutations that cause massive changes.
We do see each kind reprouce after its kind.
We do see the universe cursed by sin
and that mutations are exponentially more harmful than helpful.
Well if you can't tell teh difference between literal acts and metaphorical descriptions.
I'm pleased you've now acknowledged the fact that new species evolve. But as you know, most YE creationists have moved on, recognizing the fact that new genera and families evolve, as well.
Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits that the large number of transitional series in the fossil record is "very good evidence" for common descent.
The Bible doesn't say so, and the evidence, as Wise admits, shows that new taxa evolve from older taxa.
The Bible doesn't say so, and the evidence, as Wise admits, shows that new taxa evolve from older taxa.
You've been misled by that. Perhaps you don't know what "exponentially" means. If that was true, all organisms would rapidly go extinct. You have dozens of mutations that were not present in either of your parents.
It is true, that without natural selection, evolution would not have produced the variety of life we see on Earth. That was Darwin's great discovery.
Which is exactly why YE creationists have to alter the Bible to make the Genesis story literal history. They can't tell the difference between literal acts and metaphorical descriptions.
Yes, we know how it works. "It's literal unless I want it to be something else."
If by evolution you mean any change that occurs then I agree! Humans evolve in that sense as we age. I am now experiencing MPB and grey hair- that is evolution as well.
But changes in species are more due to variation within th ekind (Mendellian INheritance) than the requisite unplanned, random undirected mutations for trhe mythical macro evolution to have occurred.
You still b eating that dead horse?? I already showed how you took that statement out of context!
We do see each kind reprouce after its kind.
Yes it does! all you have to do is read that book every once in a while and you would see.
Well if I have been misled- it is by evolutionists themselves. They all concur that most mutations fall on teh harmful side of the equation (though of those most are benign to nearly benign)
And by good mutations it is meant that new and previous non existent information has been added
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: Ambulocetuswith 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.
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: Ambulocetuswith 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.
And you are still dishonest in pulling these quotes out of there greater context. He does not accept this evidence as fact
When he wrote this over 2 decades ago- creationist paleontology was still in its infancy and not well developed.
Why are you still being dishonest with everyone here?
From the same paper, His abstract of the paper:
And lest people have forgotten- the whale series has been thoroughly debunked since the writing of this paper!
Ha. Something funny about evos trying to use blowholes as evidence.
I told you that he doesn't. He merely admits that it's "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Although he points out that the whale series in particular:
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: Ambulocetuswith 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.
Wise still hasn't found a way to explain the transitional forms of whales. Since you understand creationist paleontology, tell us how creationists overcome the difficulties presented by whale evolution.
Everyone here knows that I told you that Wise, while admitting that transitional series of fossils are very good evidence for evolution, he prefers to believe "my understanding of scripture." You're not fooling anyone. I even told you that. Why pretend otherwise?
Would you like me to show you all of it again? C'mon. Since Wise admitted this evidence, we've found more and more transitional forms. Would you like me to show you the evolution of some feature we see in whales today? How about the blowhole?
I guess you gave up on keeping up with evolution. It was admitted that they drilled the blowhole after another fossil was found with the full upper jaw and the nostrils were at the end!
You were taken in by that story. You see, it's not just a blowhole. It's also the internal passages that connect to the blowhole. And there are a lot of those skulls now. All with transitional blowholes. And BTW, your link doesn't say what you claim it does.
Scientists initially believed that Pakicetus had flippers and a blowhole, because the teeth and middle ear were like that of a whale. Everyone was surprised that the whale-like anatomy was acutually on a land animal. So when a complete skull was found, it had nostrils close to the end of the jaw.
Dorudon has the blowhole positioned somewhat farther back.
BTW, look at the limbs on Dorudon:
Flippers. Precisely what your guys led you to believe weren't there. They lied to you, like they apparently lied to you about drilling out fake blowholes. Did you honestly think that was true?
And a bit later...
Pilot whale skull. Notice the transitional blowhole
When are you going to learn that those guys lie to you?
Yep in the early 90's YEC paleontology did not have very compelling answers. Woodmorappe did not say it was very good evidence and you know that- stop being dishonest.!
Well I guess you will have to take that up wit h th eevolutionary people who admitted on film they drew in flippers and flukes and drilled blowholes where there weren't.
Didn't happen. They did draw in flippers on Dorudon before they had a full skeleton. But when they do that, they stipple into show where the reconstruction. As you just learned, Dorodon did have flippers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?