Creationism, Darwinism and Natural History

[mark kennedy]

I aked for what I should expect to find if I were looking for evidence of God in nature - you reply that evidence of God is "obvious" and that our failure to find it is due to our refusal to define "creation".

That's a bit of a non-answer. It's sounds as though you're saying "The evidence is so obvious that if fail to notice it's your own fault" - without specifying what this evidence actually is.

The Scriptures are evidence as I have made clear repeatedly, in accordance with the traditions of the faith and the teachings of the church for 2,000 years. If you are interested in an apologetic defense of the Scriptures I'm more then happy to provide one either here or in the formal debate area if you prefer.

God's is self existing and evidence for both the character and works of God remain self evident and obvious. With regards to revelation the testimony of Scripture stands on it's own merit, clearly indicating that our lineage and the lineage of all life on this planet begins with creation week, roughly 6,000 years ago.

IF it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species; VI. Difficulties of the Theory)​

Here is such an organ, the size and complexity of the human brain.

FIGURE 2. Comparative neuroanatomy of humans and chimpanzees. (Genetics and the making of Homo sapiens. Nature April 2003)

I think another user (Papias?) has answered your point on genetics and human EQ before; we already know of a few genes which increase human brain size and folding. A few that I know of include:

• HAR1 (involved in the development of the cerebral cortex, and possibly sperm production)
• ASPM and CDK5RAP2 (both responsible for controling brain size).

As for chimpanzee fossils, it's possible we will find them in the future. After all, we have found quite a few Miocene ape fossils - so not all primate fossils are automatically considered hominins.

Papias has never so much as commented on the HAR1f regulatory gene as many times as I have posted for several years now.

Here we report that the most dramatic of these ‘human accelerated regions’, HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal– Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. HAR1 and the other human accelerated regions provide new candidates in the search for uniquely human biology."

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change, with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes. Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400Myr ago (Nature, 14 September 2006)​

What no researcher has been able to produce is an explanation for why and how a gene allowing only 2 substitutions in 400 million years suddenly gets 18, about 2 1/2 million years ago.

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.​

Where are the ancestors for the Chimpanzees in all of this? No matter, there are many candidates in the list except that they are all regarded as our ancestors and none of them are considered Chimpanzee ancestors. The giant leap to cranial capacities approaching that of humans does not begin until just under 2 million years ago. I have long contended that there is neither the time nor the means for this transition.

"The skeleton was about 1.60 m (5 ft 3 in) tall, although he might have been 68 kg (150 lb) and 1.85 m (6 ft 1 in) tall had he lived to adulthood. The total skeleton is made up of 108 bones accounted for. The cranial capacity of Turkana Boy was about 880 cc, although if he had lived to adulthood, it would have been about 910 cc"

Turkana Boy, Wikipedia​

At adulthood Turkana Boy would have had a cranial capacity of 910cc or close to twice that of the African apes who are considered our ancestors. Then the cranial capacity remained static until 100,000 years ago. Let us not forget that by some other equally mysteries evolutionary process the Neanderthals developed a cranial capacity 10% greater then our own. That is in addition to the fact that we have no chimpanzee ancestors to compare the cranial capacity to. That is because every ape skull unearthed in Africa and Asia is automatically celebrated as one of our ancestors in a desperate attempt to find this mythical transitional apeman. Not once has Papias engaged me on this subject matter. Not once has he proven capable of doing the research and fielding the arguments he would have to.

Here is another list of hominid fossils regarded among creationists as human.

Hexian 412,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,025cc.
ZKD III (Skull E I) 423,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 915cc.
ZKD II (Skull D I) 585,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,020cc
ZKD X (Skull L I) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,225cc
ZKD XI (Skull L II) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,015cc
ZKD XII (Skull L III) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,030cc
Sm 3 >100,000 years ago had a cranial 917cc
KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) 1.5 million years ago had a cranial capacity of 880cc
(Source: Endocranial Cast of Hexian Homo erectus from South China, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 130:445–454. 2006)​

(My emphasis) Evolution is not atheisms' personal trump card, not matter how often they treat it as such. They deny theistic reasons because they are atheists, not because Darwinism is so damaging to religion.

I reject Darwinism because it lacks any substantive bearing on the genuine article of science. It's only purpose would appear to be to argue against creation. Never the less, Darwin himself proposed a logical disproof of his theory. I have an answer for that. In order to examine the scientific basis for common descent I propose to examine the genetic basis for the common descent of humans from that of apes. The most dramatic and crucial adaptation being the evolution of the human brain. With a cranial capacity nearly three times that of the chimpanzee the molecular basis for this giant leap in evolutionary history is still almost, completely unknown. Changes in brain related genes are characterized by debilitating disease and disorder and yet our decent from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee would have had to be marked by a massive overhaul of brain related genes. I propose that a critical examination of common descent in the light of modern insights into molecular mechanisms of inheritance is the single strongest argument against human/ape common ancestry.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

God's is self existing and evidence for both the character and works of God remain self evident and obvious. With regards to revelation the testimony of Scripture stands on it's own merit, clearly indicating that our lineage and the lineage of all life on this planet begins with creation week, roughly 6,000 years ago.

IF it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species; VI. Difficulties of the Theory)​

Here is such an organ, the size and complexity of the human brain.

The human brain - sophisticated and complex though it may be - does not refute evolutionary theory, because we have both genetic and fossil evidence showing an sharp increase between the human-chimpanzee split and modern humans, rather than a gap.

The giant leap to cranial capacities approaching that of humans does not begin until just under 2 million years ago.

Looking at the cranial capacities you've provided shows this is not the case. For example:

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.
​

All of the examples I've highlighted in bold are Paranthropus fossils - and Paranthrops is generally considered hot to be a human ancestor. So the only two examples in this list are A. Afarensis and A. Africancus, two very early hominins. You then leap over to much later Homo Erectus specimens such as the ZDK fossils and Turkana Boy.

But there are other specimens between A. Africanus and H. Erectus:

• Homo Habilis (2.3 to 1.4 mya): cranial capacity of 750cc
• Homo Rudolfensis (2 to 1.5 mya): cranial capacity 700-752cc
• Homo Georgicus (1.8 mya): cranial capacity of 600-700cc

In fairness however I should point out a) that H. Habilis and H. Rudolfensis may not be separate species - although a new find from 2012 suggests they are, and b) H. Georgicus was named after a single specimen and may not be a separate species at all. Nevertheless we have found quite a few hominin skulls which fall in the "gap" between Australopithecus and Erectus specimens.

I'd also point out that not every creationist regards H. Erectus as human. I distinctly remember one user on CF (Astridhere) who insisted Erectus was too "stupid" to breed and "waddled" rather than walked.

I reject Darwinism because it lacks any substantive bearing on the genuine article of science. It's only purpose would appear to be to argue against creation.

Exactly. Your reject Darwinism because it's a "threat" to creationism - and therefore a threat to our religion. We have seen how human genes differ quite dramatically from those of chimps.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.
​

.......
Here is another list of hominid fossils regarded among creationists as human.

Hexian 412,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,025cc.
ZKD III (Skull E I) 423,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 915cc.
ZKD II (Skull D I) 585,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,020cc
ZKD X (Skull L I) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,225cc
ZKD XI (Skull L II) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,015cc
ZKD XII (Skull L III) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,030cc
Sm 3 >100,000 years ago had a cranial 917cc
KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) 1.5 million years ago had a cranial capacity of 880cc
(Source: Endocranial Cast of Hexian Homo erectus from South China, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 130:445–454. 2006)
​

Hiding information doesn't help us learn about the real world. Here are some he cut out:

And what about georgicus, habilis and ergaster?
D2700 with a cranial capacity of 600cc,
D2282 with a cranial capacity of 650cc,
and D2280 with a cranial capacity of 780cc all lived 1.8 mya - found in the same stratum in Dmanisi.
KNM ER 1470 with a cranial capacity of 750cc lived 1.9 mya.
KNM ER 3733 with a cranial capacity of 850cc lived 1.7 mya.

Note that they nicely fill his supposed "gap".

The fact is that this is at least the third time mark has posted this same doctored evidence list, omitting the same transitional fossils.

Some of the other times are:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7552551-4/
(he post his doctored list in post #31, it's exposed in posts #37, 38 and 35.

He does it again on this thread, claiming the gap in post #34, being called on it in post #36 http://www.christianforums.com/t7587649-4/

As before, here is a more complete set of data, showing the smooth transition from ape-like ancestors to us:

The key take away is that the actual fossils show a nice transition from chimp-like ancestor to us, and that even if it didn't, the evolution of the brain would still be easy to understand based on the genetics, where the actual geneticists have found the genes that mutated to make our brain, and see no difficulty in this process. Only mark, with no genetic expertise, sees a problem - yet he refuses to actually go to a college and get a degree in genetics so he can understand that process.

Where are the ancestors for the Chimpanzees in all of this?

mark, help me out here. At first I though you had suggested that humans had de-evolved into chimps, and so that the fossils above were the chimp ancestors. However, you disagreed with that. So do you think that homo habilis evolved from chimp-like ancestors, evolving up through ergaster and erectus, and then back down to today chimps? Or what?

I would guess that you probably know that nearly all paleontologists with expertise on human evolution see the dearth of post-habilis chimp ancestors as completely expected, because chimps live in the forest, where fossilization is rare.

And you probably remember that I posted a ton of chimp ancestors that predate 6 million years for you, right? So by "where are the chimp ancestors?", you mean only those more recent than 6 million years?

It's a glorious thing that God has given us all of this evidence to show how he created his greatest animal creation, us. I think that it give more glory to God to celebrate his giving us that evidence - all of it.

Papias


​

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

I know the popular usage of the English word 'creation', but the English word 'creation' is a translation from the Hebrew word, 'bara'.

Irrelevant to your equivocation, because we generally use English on this board.

Note that we are talking about the word "creationist", not "creation". When some says "creationist", it is generally understood to mean "someone who doesn't support evolution from a common ancestor as the origin of today's species", or in other words, someone who denies universal common descent.

So, looking at the equivocation:

mark wrote:

You cannot deny that you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian, I know your theology, it's unavoidable.

Let's un-equivocate that, shall we:


Under definition #1, mark's statement is FALSE:

You cannot deny that you must be a common descent denier in order to be a Christian, I know your theology, it's unavoidable.

Under definition #2, mark's statement is TRUE:

You cannot deny that you must be a person who believes God created, even through evolution, in order to be a Christian, I know your theology, it's unavoidable.

​

http://www.christianforums.com/t7705771-2/#post61897738

So mark, by writing something that suggests the red text above, accuse Theistic Evolution supporters of not being Christian.

Then, when called on it, he tries to suggest that he meant the green text, above, in defense.

This is the exact same equivocation scheme I've heard other (universal) common descent denying creationists use.

Just in case there is any question about whether or not mark would even want to suggest I'm not a Christian, mark dispels all doubt by calling me an atheist at the start of this very thread, in post #4.

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

What am I supposed to think, he uses an atheist as his example of what theistic evolutionists believe. I want to know, is he an atheist. That's only an ad hominem when it's, 'to the man', rather then the substance of what is being said. Your posts for instance are always focused on the individual you've targeted, never the substance of what they are trying to say. That's why I'm always reminding you guys, you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian because if you don't believe the Nicene Creed you don't belong here.

Did you address the substance of what Papias said or did you you jump on his quoting Van Till to question if Papias was a Christian? Papias wasn't even quoting what Van Till believed, he was quoting Van Till's description of TE. Van Till was for years an eminent Calvinist theologian and science lecturer, but because he has since seemed to have stumbled in his faith, you immediately jump in with a guilt by association when Papias refers to him.

All they do is disagree with me in a Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee fashion, 'contrary wise', is not a substantive argument and neither is arguing in circles around it. Evolution is the study of how traits change over time, Darwinism is simply an antithetical view of God as Creator. That's why these discussion are never without contention, there must always be someone like you who's only purpose is to be as scathing as possible. Which is why a lot of Creationists will not post to this forum:

Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. (Titus 3:10)​

Science is about natural phenomenon being directly observed or demonstrated, not assuming that every cause and effect relationship in history happened as the result of natural law rather then an act of God.

So nothing to back up your claims about evos equivocating.

You couldn't debunk your way out of a wet paper bag. You argue in circles around the obvious and really do nothing more then insult Creationists. It's all you know how to do. When challenged to produce a definition of evolution you and Papias both agreed to my definition and failed miserably to prove that universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means was a part of it. You guys want to make shallow, circular statements and then do a victory dance just because your an evolutionist and I'm a Creationist. Save it for the trolls, I'm not impressed.

Any yet in spite of all these insults you never managed to address my point. I suppose that is why you have to resort to claiming I couldn't debunk my way out of a wet paper bag, that I failed miserably, and my arguments are 'shallow' and 'circular'. I have told you before again and again that the scientific study of evolution is broader than the simple allele frequency definition of evolution. Why would you want us to show things that go beyond the definition of evolution are part of the definition? That doesn't even make sense.

What's your point man?

Just that you point was bogus, biology is not limited to studying things that are still alive.

Stop with the links already, the meaning of 'bara' isn't going to change because you added some links.

You keep making claims about what TEs do and do not say, listing a load of links where we discussed the very things you claim we never discuss is the simplest way to show you are completely wrong.

Depends on what they mean by the word 'God'.

Atheists do have times when in Romans 1 fashion they see the glory of God in the universe he created, though it tends to be more the impersonal God of Spinozan than the bible. To the extent they understand something of God through his creation, they are not being fully atheist. Unless you know any atheists who ascribe the creation of the universe to Yahweh, that it was created through his son our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, God incarnate, who knew us and foreordained us from before the foundation of the world.

You don't need links, I'm not changing my mind.

Of course you won't. The nature of God's revelation in scripture should have no effect on a mind already made up.

Because the prophetic revelation of Genesis is an historical narrative. Your trying to make them mutually exclusive the way you try to make creation mutually exclusive with evolution but that's only because you distort and conflate the meaning.

It is certainly a narrative, but recognising it as a revelation from God puts it in a very different genre to historical chronicles written by eyewitnesses or compiled from earlier sources frequently referred to by the chronicler. I don't make history and revelation mutually exclusive, there is no reason that God could not give a literal description of history as part of his revelation, but the fact is he so very often doesn't, and described events both the past and in the future in revelations that were metaphors parables and symbolic.

Are you really going to make up a new clutch phrase? Prophecy just means that God spoke and the 'prophet' relayed the message. That's why Genesis can't be derived from Near Eastern myths and be a prophetic revelation, it must be God speaking directly through a prophet. In Genesis the prophet was Moses who received the direct revelation from God first hand at the foot of Sinai. Figurative language certainly is common in the Hebrew literary style, that's not what your trying to argue here. Your trying to turn it into some cryptic symbolic riddle and it was simply not written that way. Genesis is an historical narrative, the church has always understood it in this way and always will. It's not hard to understand, you either believe it or you don't.

For it was not cleverly invented fables that we followed when we made known to you the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; it was because we were made eye-witnesses of his majesty. This happened to us on that occasion when he received honour and glory from God the Father, when this voice was borne to him by the majestic glory-"This is my Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased." It was this voice that we heard, borne from heaven, when we were with him in the sacred mountain. (2 Peter 1:16-18)​

That is a different argument that we could get into another time, how God speaks through his prophets. But you seem to have ignored my point. God's prophetic revelations are full of metaphor and symbolism.

No there's no point in going down that rabbit hole link tangent again, it's a waste of time. Jesus used parables as spiritual lessons, never of Israel's history and the Gospel is explicit with regards to redemptive history. This is including the creation of Adam and original sin and the historicity of the Old Testament including the Deluge.

For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. (Matthew 24:37-39)​

It's interesting that the Gospel comes up following you attempt to paint Old Testament as figurative, do you believe that about the New Testament as well?

The OT revelations I mentioned, Jeshurun in Deut 32&33 and Jerusalem and her sisters in Ezekiel 16, both describe the history of Israel in extended metaphors. Jesus described the history of Israel in parable too, just look at the Tenants in the Vineyard, the Labourers in the Vineyard, or the Prodigal Son.

Have I mentioned before that God is eternal, the creator of everything? That he created all things and that they were created through his Son our saviour?

No, you just insist that he used exclusively naturalistic means to create, rather then by divine fiat as Genesis literally describes. It's the dogma of Darwinism that all life descends from previously existing species by natural law rather then 'miraculous interpolation'. Theistic evolution is really nothing more then Darwinism with pedantic 'theism' implied, never defined and never defended. Like Darwinism it's just one long argument against Creation.

Don't tell me I have to provide another series of links for you to ignore?

Indeed we should all examine ourselves to see whether or not we are in the faith and walking in the Spirit.

Because you have the habit of equivocating contradictory meanings of the words you use. You argue incessantly against the historicity of the historical narrative in Genesis 1 and because of the transcendent nature of the passage I suspect the naturalistic assumptions are attached to your hermeneutics.

You mean you have a habit of doubting people are Christians if they disagree with you interpretation of scripture and dare argue with you? I have no doubt you are in the faith, what we need to make sure is that the grace of our Lord is working in our hearts when we interact with fellow believers who disagree with us.

Still, don't let me paint you in a corner with this. Prove me wrong, describe to me what you believe about the historicity of the Gospel accounts of the life and work of Christ in the 1st century and continuing to this day. If you believe the Gospel it should create no inward struggle to testify to the power of God demonstrated in the New Testament witness and the other historical narratives of the Bible.

If you believe the Gospel then you should have no qualms about defending it. Don't bother with a bunch of links that lead nowhere, just tell us plainly what you believe regarding the historicity of the Gospel.

If you are not willing to follow links to read what I told you in the past, what is the point in responding to the 'prove you are really a Christian' demands? If you really wanted to know if I was a believer, if it came from a heart of concern rather than wanting TEs not to be true Christians, you would have read my links to reassure your fears. Feeding your inquisitorial demands would just confirm you in your bigotry.

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. (Romans 10:10)

I have confessed plenty in those links.

It's not the Creationist who is bitter toward Theistic Evolutionists.

Then why do you want to believe we aren't real Christians?

They mimic the same modernist skepticism of Scripture Darwinism and Liberal Theology are famous for. It has never been my intention to indict Theistic Evolutionists as unbelievers, my purpose is to remind them of what they must believe as Christians according to the clear testimony of Scripture and the Nicene Creed

We regularly discuss scripture with you and you have never shown we must believe literalist creationism to be Christians. How many times have TEs discussed the Nicene creed with you? You have never shown that,

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
​

and

Through him all things were made.
​

mean interpret Genesis 1&2 literally.

I delight in sharing my faith with other believers and defending it against all who would set themselves against it. As a mature believer we are all called to build up one another in our faith, submitting to one another in the fear of the Lord (Eph. 5:21),

If you want to 'build up one another in our faith', then why do you keep trying to show fellow believers aren't real Christians? I can see why you would want to use it as an ad hom argument when you can't back up your views from scripture. I suppose it is one alternative, in a don't listen to them they aren't real Christians sort of way, but it is very destructive to the Body of Christ you want to build up, and to you yourself when you resort to it.

not tear down essential doctrine like creation.

There you go again. You are equivocating the doctrine of God being creator of heaven and earth, and creationists' literalist interpretation of Genesis.

You have the floor, what is your apologetic?

You mean show us if you are a Christian? Sort of like, 'If you are a son of God..."

 

[mark kennedy]

The human brain - sophisticated and complex though it may be - does not refute evolutionary theory, because we have both genetic and fossil evidence showing an sharp increase between the human-chimpanzee split and modern humans, rather than a gap.

It's not meant to refute TOE, it's a logical disproof of Darwinian universal common descent. It also fits the Biblical narrative perfectly, especially the doctrine of creation. We have genetic and fossil evidence, sure enough, but it is far from conclusive and never without natural assumptions coloring all the thinking. It's not a gap, it's a myth.

Looking at the cranial capacities you've provided shows this is not the case. For example:

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.
​

All of the examples I've highlighted in bold are Paranthropus fossils - and Paranthrops is generally considered hot to be a human ancestor. So the only two examples in this list are A. Afarensis and A. Africancus, two very early hominins. You then leap over to much later Homo Erectus specimens such as the ZDK fossils and Turkana Boy.

So they average about 400-500 cc and then comes along Turkana Boy, 1000 cc at adulthood. Yea, that doesn't sound like a giant leap at all.

But there are other specimens between A. Africanus and H. Erectus:

• Homo Habilis (2.3 to 1.4 mya): cranial capacity of 750cc
• Homo Rudolfensis (2 to 1.5 mya): cranial capacity 700-752cc
• Homo Georgicus (1.8 mya): cranial capacity of 600-700cc

In fairness however I should point out a) that H. Habilis and H. Rudolfensis may not be separate species - although a new find from 2012 suggests they are, and b) H. Georgicus was named after a single specimen and may not be a separate species at all. Nevertheless we have found quite a few hominin skulls which fall in the "gap" between Australopithecus and Erectus specimens.

Hang on, you seem to have gotten off track with Homo habilis:

• KNM ER 1813 - 1.9 my, 510 cc
• OH 7 dates to 1.75 my, 363 cc
• OH 24 1,8 my, just under 600 cm

Might want to double check your sources on that.

I'd also point out that not every creationist regards H. Erectus as human. I distinctly remember one user on CF (Astridhere) who insisted Erectus was too "stupid" to breed and "waddled" rather than walked.

The cranial capacity was well within the human range and the other feature do not diverge from modern human that much at all.

Exactly. Your reject Darwinism because it's a "threat" to creationism - and therefore a threat to our religion. We have seen how human genes differ quite dramatically from those of chimps.

Darwinism is no more a threat to creationism then gnosticism was to the trinity. We might not see an end to Darwinism in our day but one thing is for sure, Creationism is inextricably linked to essential doctrine and will endure as long as the Scriptures endure.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Hang on, you seem to have gotten off track with Homo habilis:

• KNM ER 1813 - 1.9 my, 510 cc
• OH 7 dates to 1.75 my, 363 cc
• OH 24 1,8 my, just under 600 cm

Might want to double check your sources on that.

To clarify, the particular fossils I had in mind were:

• KNM-ER 1470 (assigned Homo Rudolfensis): upper estimate of 775cc. The specimen was thought to be a young adult when it died (link)
• D2280 (originally assigned to Homo Georgicus but now considered Homo Ergaster): estimated at 780cc. This makes it larger than H. Habilis but still much smaller than H. Erectus (link).
• D2282 (once assigned to H. georgicus but now considered a member of H. Ergaster too): estimated at 650cc. Same link as above.

There are a few other things I should point out about the specimens you mentioned. First is that chimps have a cranial capacity of about 480cc - so OH 24, despite "only" being 600cc, still has a cranial capaicty much larger than a chimpanzees'. Second is that OH 7 is considered to be a junvenile specimen, so naturally would have a smaller brain size. It's estimated that as an adult it would have had a cranial capacity of around 690cc - or even as high as 868cc (link).

 

[mark kennedy]

Here we go, I was wondering when you would finally show up.

Hiding information doesn't help us learn about the real world

Believe me when it comes to the actual evidence that last thing I want to do is hide it. Sometimes I only engage you because if I don't your going to bury it in spam.

And what about georgicus, habilis and ergaster?
D2700 with a cranial capacity of 600cc,

How about we look at the actual fossils:

Because of its incomplete growth, the estimate of 600 cc for the endocranial capacity of D2700 may underestimate its adult endocranial volume. (AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 2005)​

Within the range of human cranial capacity, this one is human.

D2282 with a cranial capacity of 650cc,

D2282 cannot be measured directly because of post- mortem deformation, and is estimated to be 650 cc​

As a matter of fact:

The data points of the fossil specimens may be in error. Only one value for each fossil specimen is reported as measured or estimated cranial capacity, without any error statements. For D2280, the cranial capacity is measured using seeds. However, this method was criticized for its unreliability and greater variation than lead shots (Gould, 1978). The reported cranial capacity for D2282 could be in error due to the effects of postmortem deformation and fragmentary preservation. The attempt to extrapolate to maturity the cranial capacity measurement of D2700 may have been incorrect. Another limitation of this study comes from the small sample size, by using the largest ratio possible from the three data points available. ((AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 2005))​

I've seen very little that makes the measurement of these fossils definite. It looks to me like human fossils to me. That and their location, the Hominids are found in Africa most of the time and the Asian fossils are always dubious. Then in Russia we get these puzzling fragments that are not leaving us with an definite measurements.

They are human, I'm still looking around but the size of the cranial capacity is in question and they fall within the human range.

KNM ER 1470 with a cranial capacity of 750cc lived 1.9 mya.

How they are constructed and reconstructed can be a major obstacle in understanding these fragmentary artifacts:

Reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looked very ape-like (possibly due to an exaggerated rotation of the skull[3]) and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy. (Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, Wikipedia)​

This one is an ape.

KNM ER 3733 with a cranial capacity of 850cc lived 1.7 mya.

Definitely human

Note that they nicely fill his supposed "gap".

What's all this nonsense about a 'gap'? My argument is that there was neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes. All your really doing is organizing them by size and since we have no chimpanzee ancestors to compare them to we don't know what their cranial capacity was supposed to be.

Don't you get tired of talking in circles?

The fact is that this is at least the third time mark has posted this same doctored evidence list, omitting the same transitional fossils.

Some of the other times are:

I'm not going down your rabbit hole. If you have a substantive argument then make it. What is more that asinine scatter gram you are spamming from Pandas Thumb just adds color to the chaos of your arguments.

The key take away is that the actual fossils show a nice transition from chimp-like ancestor to us, and that even if it didn't, the evolution of the brain would still be easy to understand based on the genetics, where the actual geneticists have found the genes that mutated to make our brain, and see no difficulty in this process. Only mark, with no genetic expertise, sees a problem - yet he refuses to actually go to a college and get a degree in genetics so he can understand that process.

If you go to college and get a degree in genetics you are going to find that changes in brain related genes result in deleterious if not lethal effects. Your not going to find a smooth transition, you are going to find a formula for death and disorder. Every researcher on the subject of the molecular basis for the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes openly admits they don't have a clue.

mark, help me out here. At first I though you had suggested that humans had de-evolved into chimps,

That's a lie you made up, you twist my words around just like you do everything else in these conversations. I have said that we are not evolving, but because of the fall, we are de-volving and so are the chimps. The idea is that originally created kinds had pristine genomes and the living creatures had nearly pristine genomes. Mutations do not facilitate major adaptive radiation. The molecular mechanisms were built into the genomes.

I have always maintained that chimpanzee and human lineage are separate. Not only is your inflammatory charge a lie, it makes no sense.

But by the way, do you still believe that Adam married an ape?

and so that the fossils above were the chimp ancestors. However, you disagreed with that. So do you think that homo habilis evolved from chimp-like ancestors, evolving up through ergaster and erectus, and then back down to today chimps? Or what?

I sort through to fragmentary forensics of paleontology from time to time, it's a lot more tedious and puzzling then the life sciences though. The whole gambit is up for grabs and speculation abounds. When I decided to ignore the whole geology thing because it's utterly irrelevant I almost abandoned paleontology for many of the same reasons.

What is important to realize is that Chimpanzee fossils are being peppered into these mythical mosaics of human ancestors.

I would guess that you probably know that nearly all paleontologists with expertise on human evolution see the dearth of post-habilis chimp ancestors as completely expected, because chimps live in the forest, where fossilization is rare.

Actually the live in the savannas and it's a very curious thing. The Taung Child was found in the savannas, has a cranial capacity that is small even for a modern chimpanzee and yet, it must be a human ancestor. You wanna know why? Because every chimpanzee skull dug up in Africa is automatically one of our ancestors. If they were not alive today there would be no evidence that they every existed. This should be telling you something but your blinded by your love for worldly affirmation.

And you probably remember that I posted a ton of chimp ancestors that predate 6 million years for you, right? So by "where are the chimp ancestors?", you mean only those more recent than 6 million years?

I would remember you trying to show me chimpanzee ancestors Papias. Don't even try it. Please tell me you are talking about fossils because the entire fossil record of chimpanzee fossils consists of three teeth:

Thousands of fossils, including the famous Australopithicus afarensis, "Lucy," found in Ethiopia, have been filling in the hominin family tree. Early humans split off from a common ancestor shared with chimpanzees between five and eight million years ago. "But on the chimpanzee side we've had nothing," said Nina Jablonski, curator of anthropology at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco. Jablonski identified at least three fossil chimpanzee teeth from a set of fossils collected by University of Connecticut anthropologist Sally McBrearty. The two scientists report their discovery in tomorrow's issue of the science journal Nature. (First Chimp Fossils Found)​

It's called begging the question of proof on your hands and knees.

It's a glorious thing that God has given us all of this evidence to show how he created his greatest animal creation, us. I think that it give more glory to God to celebrate his giving us that evidence - all of it.

Amen, finally something we can agree on.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

(Heh, I've just realised I've given the same fossil examples as Papias. My mistake, I don't always read comments which aren't directed at me. )

I think there are a few contradictions in your arguments here Mark Kennedy:

D2700 with a cranial capacity of 600cc

How about we look at the actual fossils:

Because of its incomplete growth, the estimate of 600 cc for the endocranial capacity of D2700 may underestimate its adult endocranial volume. (AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 2005)
​

Within the range of human cranial capacity, this one is human.

Here it says D2700 (assigned Homo Ergaster) had an estimated cranial capacity of 600cc, and you say that is enough to make it human (the paper itself gives an estimate of no higher than 645cc: link). Yet here you wrote:

Hang on, you seem to have gotten off track with Homo habilis:

• KNM ER 1813 - 1.9 my, 510 cc
• OH 7 dates to 1.75 my, 363 cc
• OH 24 1,8 my, just under 600 cm

Might want to double check your sources on that.

I assumed when you mentioned OH 24 (assigned Homo Habilis) you brought it up because you though a cranial capacity of 600cc was too low to be considered humans.

Two different species (H. Habilis and H. Ergaster), two very similar cranial capacities ... who should one be considered "human" and the other should not?

Furthermore, earlier you wrote:

So they average about 400-500 cc and then comes along Turkana Boy, 1000 cc at adulthood. Yea, that doesn't sound like a giant leap at all.

Presuming a cranial capacity of 600cc is enough to be considered human, that means there is only about a 100-200cc difference between humans and Australopithecines. That's nothing when you consider modern ethnic groups can vary in brain size by as much as 300cc, and in individuals this difference can be even higher.

 

[SkyWriting]

Presuming a cranial capacity of 600cc is enough to be considered human, that means there is only about a 100-200cc difference between humans and Australopithecines. That's nothing when you consider modern ethnic groups can vary in brain size by as much as 300cc, and in individuals this difference can be even higher.

That's why going by what one sees is dumb.

Humanity should be defined by behavior.
Those who don't measure up, should loose the
protection of the definition.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson

Presuming a cranial capacity of 600cc is enough to be considered human, that means there is only about a 100-200cc difference between humans and Australopithecines. That's nothing when you consider modern ethnic groups can vary in brain size by as much as 300cc, and in individuals this difference can be even higher.

Dear Note, Sorry, but believing the false assumptions of today's Science, that humans evolved their human intelligence from mindless Nature, is wrong according to Scripture. There is NO data which supports this false view.

ONLY the descendants of Adam are humans. Adam was made with the ability to know both good and evil. Every creature whose origin was in the water, as the prehistoric people you list, did NOT have this ability, which ONLY God and humans have.

God calls these prehistoric people the "sons of God" for they were innocent until AFTER they married and produced children with Noah's grandsons. Christians are also called the "sons of God" AFTER they are born again, and thus considered innocent.

In Love,
Aman
​

 

[mark kennedy]

So mark, by writing something that suggests the red text above, accuse Theistic Evolution supporters of not being Christian.

Then, when called on it, he tries to suggest that he meant the green text, above, in defense.

This is the exact same equivocation scheme I've heard other (universal) common descent denying creationists use.

Just in case there is any question about whether or not mark would even want to suggest I'm not a Christian, mark dispels all doubt by calling me an atheist at the start of this very thread, in post #4.

Papias

When you use Howard Van Till as an example of your brand of Theistic Evolution, what do you expect?

Howard Van Till, who abandoned Christianity after retiring from Calvin College, makes an argument that is now practically universal among theistic evolutionists: He contends that on the grounds of a “theological aesthetic” it would be “distasteful” for God to act directly in nature after the initial creation The Creation Story for Atheists ​

If your a Creationist you believe God acted in creation, doing what only God can do. Genesis 1 is explicit that God created the universe (Gen 1:1), life (Gen. 1:21) and man (Gen 1:27), 'bara' which is nihilo creation in no uncertain terms. On the one hand Theistic Evolutionists want to ridicule Creationists for believing God acted in creation, doing what only God can do. Then Theistic Evolutionists want to call it 'distasteful' for God to act in nature subsequent to the original creation.

Sounds like you have a worldly philosophy, replete with naturalistic assumptions that are not discernibly different from atheistic materialism. If you want to defend this charge then first and foremost address me in the first person, not the third. Secondly, tell me how a person who abandoned Christianity and denies that God acts in nature (which is a categorical denial of miracles) is a Christian who affirms the Nicene Creed.

Creationism is not an antithetical philosophy, it's normative Christian theism, always has been and always will be. Creationism is a positive belief in God acting in time and space to do what no law of nature, natural process or pagan elemental could do.

Creationists refuse to make the naturalistic assumption of atheistic materialists like Darwinians, i.e. the universal common ancestry of all of life by exclusively naturalistic means. Neither I nor any Creationist denies evolution in the scientific sense, 'the change of alleles in populations over time'.

Your definition of Creationism is wrong and your example of a Theistic Evolutionist has abandoned Christianity and denied God acts in nature. I have told you countless times that the definition of Creationism is found in the original Hebrew words translated 'created' in Genesis 1. Repeatedly, you have tried to use that absurd 'evolution denier' definition even though Creationism has been around since Moses.

You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian. What is more, you must believe that God acted in time and space, not through nature, but by divine fiat, throughout redemptive history.

Your Christian profession is not to deny that or to ridicule those who believe that, but to celebrate and proclaim it.

I never intended to deny you were a Christian, I'm trying to remind you of it. I did ask you if you were an atheist for one reason, when you denied it the next question was, 'then why would you get your theology from one?'

You were calling me a deist for a while, it didn't bother me, I know what a deist is and what I believe. Defending myself against a shallow accusation like that is little more then comic relief. That is of course unless it were true, in which I would probably have to resort to a fallacious line of rhetoric, like you are in the habit of doing. My response was to show the clear meaning of 'deist' and 'creationist' and soundly refute the charge based on reason and proof. That's the only way of proving a person is guilty of an equivocation fallacy, show the two meaning and how they cannot possibly be the same thing. Then just demonstrate the person using the argument uses both meanings as if they were the same thing. The way you use the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism and the genuine article a biological evolution synonymously.

Creationism is God acting in time and space to create the universe, life and man by divine fiat, ex nihilo, in accordance with the clear testimony of Scripture. Now that is a clear denial of the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism sure enough but it existed thousands of years before Darwinism. It is the Darwinian who is a 'creation denier' since Darwinism has always been just one long argument against creation.

Creationism is nothing more then traditional Christian theism and you know it.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

The conflict for Christian's who believe the Bible to be the revelation of God concerning the true history of man this creates a real problem. The Scriptures are clear for instance that God created ex nihilo, that is by divine fiat the universe (Gen. 1:1); all living creatures (Gen. 1:21); and man (Gen. 1:27).

1) to create, shape, form

a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations ​

(Strong's H1254 - bara')

The Lexicon you quote isn't actually Strong's, it is a very abridged version of BDB, Brown Driver and Briggs. It is just using the Strong's number for bara, H1254, as a reference. It is no harm, BDB is a lot more scholarly than Strong's. The problem for you here is that the Lexicon says nothing about God's work of creation having to be ex nihilo. It says the verb form is always used of God, and that it refers to him shaping, forming or creating. The fact it tells you bara can mean shaping and forming should by itself show you bara doesn't have to mean ex nihilo, from nothing.

In fact I have often pointed out to you that the creation of Adam isn't ex nihilo. Even when you interpret Genesis literally God formed Adam from dust, that is creating him from pre-existing material, not ex nihilo, from nothing. Why do you keep repeating these claims when you have been shown repeated from the plain meaning of scripture that your claim has no basis?

If you read the full version of BDB you would see that where the abbreviated version just has

2) of individual man
​

BDB goes on to give examples like Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose. I have also created the ravager to destroy. Remember when I pointed that one out to you? That God created the blacksmith even though Mr and Mrs Smith played their normal role too? BDB also mentions Isaiah 43:1,7&15 describing God creating Israel and Jacob, as well as verses that describe God creating each one of us, Eccl 12:1 Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, and Mal 2:10 Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Again there is no contradiction between God each one of us and the normal processes of human reproductive biology he used instead creating each one of us ex nihilo.

 

[Assyrian]

When you use Howard Van Till as an example of your brand of Theistic Evolution, what do you expect?

Howard Van Till, who abandoned Christianity after retiring from Calvin College, makes an argument that is now practically universal among theistic evolutionists: He contends that on the grounds of a “theological aesthetic” it would be “distasteful” for God to act directly in nature after the initial creation The Creation Story for Atheists ​

I would expect you to realise from Papias having told you before that he believes in miracles and that God intervenes in the natural world, that Van Till's views after fell away from faith do not apply to Papias. And if instead you jumped to some sort of guilt by association conclusion and mistakenly questioned Papias's Christianity, when the mistake was pointed out to you, I would expect you to withdraw the question and apologise. At least, that is what is expected of you, I am not all that surprised you keep trying to justify your behaviour.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Lexicon you quote isn't actually Strong's, it is a very abridged version of BDB, Brown Driver and Briggs. It is just using the Strong's number for bara, H1254, as a reference. It is no harm, BDB is a lot more scholarly than Strong's.

It's actually from the Blue Bible Lexicon, a handy online reference I tend to like because of the convenience. It includes the Strong's reference number and other things like the BDB. It's just handy and a little more detailed then a lot of the online resources. I ended up using it because I switched from a PC to a Mac a few years back and Esword doesn't work so well on MACs.

The problem for you here is that the Lexicon says nothing about God's work of creation having to be ex nihilo. It says the verb form is always used of God, and that it refers to him shaping, forming or creating. The fact it tells you bara can mean shaping and forming should by itself show you bara doesn't have to mean ex nihilo, from nothing.

Which is why the Vine's Dictionary was a more in depth exposition of 'bara' in the original.

"The verb bara expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale' (Vine's)​

Which is consistent with the definitions you will get from other New Testaments dictionaries.

In fact I have often pointed out to you that the creation of Adam isn't ex nihilo. Even when you interpret Genesis literally God formed Adam from dust, that is creating him from pre-existing material, not ex nihilo, from nothing. Why do you keep repeating these claims when you have been shown repeated from the plain meaning of scripture that your claim has no basis?

This is the passage:

So God created (bara) man in his own image, in the image of God created (bara) he him; male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:27)​

It's the strongest language used to describe God's creative work. Adam was made (Strong's H6213 - `asah; Gen. 5:1) from the earth, which is preexisting obviously, but by God, who did it ex nihilo. It doesn't say directed, it doesn't say made (there are other words in the Hebrew for that)

If you read the full version of BDB you would see that where the abbreviated version just has

2) of individual man
​

BDB goes on to give examples like Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose. I have also created the ravager to destroy. Remember when I pointed that one out to you?

Of course I remember, Genesis 1:1 is in the perfect sense of 'Qal'. Genesis 1:21, 27 are in the imperfect sense, thus, from the earth, an ex nihileo creation in that living creatures including man are created new. The word can take on a number of forms

Male and female created (bə·rā·’ām) he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created (hib·bā·rə·’ām). Gen. 5:2)​

Only in Genesis 1:1 is it being used in the perfect sense. Even when it is being used in the imperfect sense the creation is ex nihileo. God created Eve from Adam's rib so the ex nihileo creation while not perfect is still not from a preexisting parent. Jesus quotes the Genesis account calling it 'the beginning'.

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female (Matt 19:4)​

That God created the blacksmith even though Mr and Mrs Smith played their normal role too? BDB also mentions Isaiah 43:1,7&15 describing God creating Israel and Jacob, as well as verses that describe God creating each one of us, Eccl 12:1 Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, and Mal 2:10 Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Again there is no contradiction between God each one of us and the normal processes of human reproductive biology he used instead creating each one of us ex nihilo.

Israel was and is a miracle. In Ecclesiastes is just saying to remember your Creator while your young, not how you were created, Malachi is just saying that God created us, using the strongest possible term for Creator which is 'bara'.

It need not be in the perfect sense of being from absolutely nothing, in order to be an ex nihileo creation. The use of 'bara' does not allow for God using natural law as a tool for his creation of life any more then it would pagan elementals. The source of life on this planet is God, the Scriptures could not be any more emphatic or explicit in this regards.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Hiding information doesn't help us learn about the real world

Believe me when it comes to the actual evidence that last thing I want to do is hide it.

Well, if true, that will make this discussion easier.

How about we look at the actual fossils:
​

Because of its incomplete growth, the estimate of 600 cc for the endocranial capacity of D2700 may underestimate its adult endocranial volume. (AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 2005)
​

Within the range of human cranial capacity, this one is human.

What? With nearly all humans being between 1000 and 1600 cc, 600, even if not fully adult, is a far cry from a normal human.


​

D2282 with a cranial capacity of 650cc,
​

D2282 cannot be measured directly because of post- mortem deformation, and is estimated to be 650 cc
​

As a matter of fact:

...estimated cranial capacity, without any error statements. For D2280, the cranial capacity is measured using seeds. However, this method was criticized for its unreliability and greater variation than lead shots (Gould, 1978). The reported cranial capacity for D2282 could be in error due to the effects of postmortem deformation and fragmentary preservation. ...





I've seen very little that makes the measurement of these fossils definite.
​

It doesn't have to be exact, mark. At around 600-700, it could be off by a lot - even 10%, and still not be close to being human.

It looks to me like human fossils to me.

Because not being an expert, you don't know beans about hominid skulls. The experts are clear that these are not modern human skulls. Do you deny that?

They are human, I'm still looking around but the size of the cranial capacity is in question and they fall within the human range.

Simply wrong. Many studies have shown that nearly all humans fall within around 1000-1600 cc. 650 cc is nowhere near the range of normal, modern humans.

http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v25n1/art08.pdf
​

How they are constructed and reconstructed can be a major obstacle in understanding these fragmentary artifacts:

Reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. ...526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy.
​

having ape-like features is not the same as not being clearly in the direction of being a human. Regardless of the downsizing, it's still above the chimp range, and no experts say it is simply a "chimp".

This one is an ape.

says the person who doesn't isn't an expert in hominid skulls. Sorry, that doesn't help you.
​

KNM ER 3733 with a cranial capacity of 850cc lived 1.7 mya.
​

Definitely human

Wrong again. 850 cc is obviously not a normal human, not to mention all the other features that make it clear to those who are not clueless about hominid skulls that KNM ER 3733 is not a normal modern human.


It seems that in addition to stating falsehoods about the skulls above, that you are not being open about all the data. As we saw with the graph, even if these listed ones weren't clear enough, there are many other skulls showing the smooth transition from chimp-like anscestor to human.

Here are dozens more, in fact:

http://www.columbia.edu/~rlh2/PartII.pdf
​

What's all this nonsense about a 'gap'?

Oh, so now you abandon your point in post #101 where you called it a "giant leap" (and earlier threads as well)?

My argument is that there was neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes.

Oh, in contradiction to the people who actually understand the evidence, many of whom are Christian, who don't see your imaginary "problem"?

All your really doing is organizing them by size

Simply false. You get similar results if organized by age or by size. Funny that, eh?

and since we have no chimpanzee ancestors to compare them to we don't know what their cranial capacity was supposed to be.

Are you intentionally ignoring the previous data I posted? We have plenty of ancestors of chimps, as well as modern chimps, so it is easy to see the cranial capacity of our chimp-like ancestors from 10 million years ago.

I'm not going down your rabbit hole. If you have a substantive argument then make it. What is more that asinine scatter gram you are spamming from Pandas Thumb just adds color to the chaos of your arguments.

We've seen that venom spouted the other times your arguments were previously refuted by evidence as well.
​

The key take away is that the actual fossils show a nice transition from chimp-like ancestor to us, and that even if it didn't, the evolution of the brain would still be easy to understand based on the genetics, where the actual geneticists have found the genes that mutated to make our brain, and see no difficulty in this process. Only mark, with no genetic expertise, sees a problem - yet he refuses to actually go to a college and get a degree in genetics so he can understand that process.

If you go to college and get a degree in genetics you are going to find that changes in brain related genes result in deleterious if not lethal effects.

Funny coming from someone with no genetics background, in contradiction to those who do understand genetics, who have explained how simple it is for mutations to lead to the human brain from a brain like that of a chimp. I can post the video of the actual experts explaining it again, if you'll learn from it this time.

Every researcher on the subject of the molecular basis for the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes openly admits they don't have a clue.

Really? Even this one, who states that many of the beneficial the mutational points have been found?


What Separates Us from Chimps? As It Turns Out, Not Much - YouTube

​

I have always maintained that chimpanzee and human lineage are separate.

OK, so you think modern chimps evolved from a more human like (bigger brained) ancestor? Just how big a brain do you think some chimp ancestors had?

But by the way, do you still believe that Adam married an ape?

mark, you and I both married apes. I assume you mean "ape" in the sense of a chimp-like ape, in which case I'd say no, eve would have been about as similar to modern humans as Adam was, and that there are many possibilities.
​

I sort through to fragmentary forensics of paleontology from time to time, it's a lot more tedious and puzzling then the life sciences though. The whole gambit is up for grabs and speculation abounds. When I decided to ignore the whole geology thing because it's utterly irrelevant I almost abandoned paleontology for many of the same reasons.

Hmmm.... 'sounds like someone who doesn't understand either field. The experts don't think "the whole gambit is up for grabs", mark.

Because every chimpanzee skull dug up in Africa is automatically one of our ancestors.

No mark, it's based on anatomical changes and dating, not conspiracy theories. If you were competent in that field, you'd know that.
​

And you probably remember that I posted a ton of chimp ancestors that predate 6 million years for you, right? So by "where are the chimp ancestors?", you mean only those more recent than 6 million years?

I would remember you trying to show me chimpanzee ancestors Papias. Don't even try it. Please tell me you are talking about fossils because the entire fossil record of chimpanzee fossils consists of three teeth:

Yes, of course they are fossils. Here is the thread again: http://www.christianforums.com/t7651905-6/#post60521358. They are listed in post #52, all older than 6 million years.

Now, between the dozens of other skulls, the genetic expert saying that brain evolution is not a problem, and the ancestors of chimpanzees, do you see how one could get the impression that you are not presenting all the relevant information before making a claim?

In Christ's name-

Papias

​

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, if true, that will make this discussion easier.

I'm not the one performing for an imaginary crowd, obsessed with fallacious flames, attacking those who stand on the clear testimony of Scripture. That would be you.

What? With nearly all humans being between 1000 and 1600 cc, 600, even if not fully adult, is a far cry from a normal human.

They are a far cry from definitive cranial capacities and anatomical features. You just spam the cut and paste arguments you have been arguing in circles with and do your little victory dance.

It doesn't have to be exact, mark. At around 600-700, it could be off by a lot - even 10%, and still not be close to being human.

But 400cc to 500cc are so close that they could never be considered Chimpanzee ancestors. They are very much like the Asian hominids, fragmentary and speculation abounds.

Because not being an expert, you don't know beans about hominid skulls. The experts are clear that these are not modern human skulls. Do you deny that?

Deny what? That the leading paleontologists of our time are virtually all Darwinians? There are no chimpanzee ancestors to compare our supposed ancestors to, do you deny that? There wouldn't be any evidence that they every existed if they were not alive today, do you deny that?

Look at them in the timeline, as a mater of fact, look at the vast majority of hominid fossils with cranial capacities over 600cc. Let's call this the cerebral rubicon and then perhaps you would consider how between 2 mya and 1.5 mya ago the cranial capacity of hominids doubled. Then we can play the comparative anatomy game.

Simply wrong. Many studies have shown that nearly all humans fall within around 1000-1600 cc. 650 cc is nowhere near the range of normal, modern humans.

In addition to a small body size, H. floresiensis had a remarkably small brain. The brain of the holotype LB1 is estimated to have had a volume of 380 cc...An indicator of intelligence is the size of Brodmann's area 10, the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain associated with higher cognition. LB1's region 10 is about the same size as that of modern humans, despite the much smaller overall size of the brain...(Homo floresiensis, Wikipedia)​

Wrong again. 850 cc is obviously not a normal human, not to mention all the other features that make it clear to those who are not clueless about hominid skulls that KNM ER 3733 is not a normal modern human.

Your entitled to your opinion but I never said they were clueless about the fossils. I said they were clueless about the molecular basis. Starting about 2 million years ago the human brain could have evolved from that of apes, with a very small window, between about 1.65 and 1.45 mya, including, KNM-WT 15000, KNM-ER 3883, and KNM-ER 42700, OH 9, KNM-ER 3733, KNM-ER 730, KNM-ER 1808, KNM-ER 1821.

Source: (Revised stratigraphy of Area 123, Koobi Fora, Kenya, and new age estimates of its fossil mammals, including hominins, Journal of Human Evolution 2005)

It seems that in addition to stating falsehoods about the skulls above, that you are not being open about all the data. As we saw with the graph, even if these listed ones weren't clear enough, there are many other skulls showing the smooth transition from chimp-like anscestor to human.

I think your accusations that I am lying is the exact same projection you are shameless about when it comes to fallacious equivocation arguments. You can't prove it but since all you do on here is insult Creationists you just catapult the fireball off the wall. It's what you do when you have nothing but a scattergram gif and random links. You posts look like an alphabet soup factory exploded and not once has your arguments been positive evidence, always the emphasis is on me.

They are arguments that never happen, figments of your over zealous Darwinian vendetta against those who believe God acts in time and space.

Here are dozens more, in fact:

http://www.columbia.edu/~rlh2/PartII.pdf
[/INDENT]

​

That's not a fact, it's a poor excuse for a link, without an explanation.

Oh, so now you abandon your point in post #101 where you called it a "giant leap" (and earlier threads as well)?

I haven't changed my arguments in years, the giant leap is the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes, starting about 2 mya. That has always been the argument, it does not change because the facts do not change.

Oh, in contradiction to the people who actually understand the evidence, many of whom are Christian, who don't see your imaginary "problem"?

I don't have a problem, you have a problem with me. I don't know who these imaginary people are, perhaps the same imaginary people you talk to when responding to my posts. When are you going to deal with actual arguments instead of chasing the wind in circles?

Simply false. You get similar results if organized by age or by size. Funny that, eh?

I do organize by age and size, it's really all you can squeeze into these incessant ad hominem attacks. At one time a Creationists couldn't post to a discussion forum without being gang tackled by dozens of evolutionists. You arrived late. Now I'm picking up Christian apologetics and Creationism on my car radio daily and the boards are thinning out steadily.

Have you noticed Creationists aren't posting to the thread? I continue this discussion out of courtesy and a sincere desire to reason with Christians who are isolating themselves from traditional Christian theism. I don't do it because I have something to prove, I do it because it's needed. At one time I was concerned about Creationists who were earnestly trying to understand the issues, but they are all but gone. Now I just come on here to hear you rant and rave to an empty theater and I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Are you intentionally ignoring the previous data I posted? We have plenty of ancestors of chimps, as well as modern chimps, so it is easy to see the cranial capacity of our chimp-like ancestors from 10 million years ago.

Say again....You mean to tell me you have evidence of chimpanzee ancestors? Do tell, I would enjoy hearing about this evidence.

We've seen that venom spouted the other times your arguments were previously refuted by evidence as well.

The venomous truth about Howard Van Till being an atheist or that all Christians must be Creationists?

Funny coming from someone with no genetics background, in contradiction to those who do understand genetics, who have explained how simple it is for mutations to lead to the human brain from a brain like that of a chimp. I can post the video of the actual experts explaining it again, if you'll learn from it this time.

So now I'm going to learn how science has discovered how mutations in brain related genes are beneficial?

Really? Even this one, who states that many of the beneficial the mutational points have been found?

First of all he never once mentions mutations, he just lies about the genomic divergence.

What Separates Us from Chimps? As It Turns Out, Not Much - YouTube

So Robert Sapolsky is aware of the Human genome project publishing their initial sequence in 2001 and the Chimpanzee genome consortium publishing theirs in 2005. He is aware that the sequences were compared and wants to tell us that the sequences are 98.9% the same?

It's simply not true and this has been a well established fact for quite some time:

Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23%
indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies (Nature, 2005)​

These are the 'recent studies' mentioned in the quote:

• Fortna, A. et al. Lineage-specific gene duplication and loss in human and great ape evolution. PLoS Biol. 2, (2004)
• Britten, R. J. Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. (2002)
• Frazer, K. A. et al. Genomic DNA insertions and deletions occur frequently between humans and nonhuman primates. Genome Res. (2003)
• Locke, D. P. et al. Large-scale variation among human and great ape genomes determined by array comparative genomic hybridization. Genome Res. 13, 347–357 (2003)
• Liu, G. et al. Analysis of primate genomic variation reveals a repeat-driven expansion of the human genome. Genome Res. (2003)

CARTA: The Genetics of Humanness: Katherine Pollard - Human Accelerated Regions in the Genome - YouTube

Now, between the dozens of other skulls, the genetic expert saying that brain evolution is not a problem, and the ancestors of chimpanzees, do you see how one could get the impression that you are not presenting all the relevant information before making a claim?

You mean a genetic expert like this researcher?

“For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution,” said Lahn. “Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes—and even that is a conservative estimate.” Human Brain Evolution Was a 'Special Event'​

Or do you mean Robert Sapolsky who said that the comparison of the Chimpanzee and Human genome were almost 99% the same? The truth is not that hard to find. What is actually surprising is that they can say the DNA of Chimpanzees and Humans is 98-99% the same, citing a landmark paper, that says 95% at best. They get away with it because they know that people like you will never read the paper and certainly will never call them on it.

You haven't made a single point stick, your facts are in error and at the heart of every argument is a fallacious poison pill you swallow whole without batting an eye. This worldly philosophy has failed you Papias, I can only help you with that so far and the rest is up to you.

The culture wars are over, abortion on demand is the law, gay rights activists have the political power they sought and Darwinism still can't be questioned in academic circles. The Creationists have fanned out and established an area of ministry that is reaching millions on a daily basis. The only real losers I see in this cultural chess game are the Theistic Evolutionists who have alienated traditional Christian theism in favor of a philosophy that is either going to abandon them or turn on them like starving dogs in winter. I have taken my stand on the Scriptures, appealing to the scientific literature like most Creationists. The Darwinians have stood firm on their naturalistic assumptions and never yielded to Christian theism expelling them from their academic ivory towers firmly established as the secular clerics of the modern world.

You made your place in a no man's land, never really belonging to either side. You never really learned the sciences or you own theology because you were never really interested in either. I don't know what you think you gained but it couldn't be worth what you lost.

Grace and peace,
Mark​

 

[Assyrian]

It's actually from the Blue Bible Lexicon, a handy online reference I tend to like because of the convenience. It includes the Strong's reference number and other things like the BDB. It's just handy and a little more detailed then a lot of the online resources. I ended up using it because I switched from a PC to a Mac a few years back and Esword doesn't work so well on MACs.

Yes I use it Blue Letter Bible myself.

Which is why the Vine's Dictionary was a more in depth exposition of 'bara' in the original.
"The verb bara expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale' (Vine's)
Which is consistent with the definitions you will get from other New Testaments dictionaries.

You also quote from Vine's dictionary. Have you read the introduction to the Old Testament section of his dictionary, written by F. F. Bruce?

This expository dictionary carries Old Testament words not previously published in the format done so well by W. E. Vine in his original work. When Mr. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words had been finally seen through the press, he turned his attention to a similar project on Old Testament words. He made no claim to the kind of expert mastery of Hebrew that he had of Greek, but he had been for many years a careful student of the Hebrew Bible. At the time of his death in November, 1949, he left in manuscript the material contained here. The words which are treated in this edition are, for the most part, words of theological importance, but the list includes some technical terms and other words of general interest. Readers who have profited by Mr. Vine's Greek word studies will be glad to have this selection of word studiesin the Old Testament.

F. F. Bruce
​

Vine's views on bara are just a word study, the personal views from someone who was not and did not claim to be an expert in Hebrew.

In terms of other OT lexicons, Blue Letter Bible doesn't just give you an abbreviated version of BDB, it also gives you Gesenius's Lexicon. You can see the full entry if you hit the 'Click Here for the Rest of the Entry'. As you can see, it make no mention of bara meaning ex nihilo. Strong's says:

H1254
בּרא
ba[FONT=&quot]̂[/FONT]ra[FONT=&quot]̂[/FONT]'
baw-raw'
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).
​

Again no mention of bara meaning ex nihilo. If you want to check a modern lexicon there is HALOT (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament) by Köhler, Baumgartner and Stamm. You can read the entry for bara here. Again there is no suggestion that bara means ex nihilo. That is not to say that God's original work of creation wasn't ex nihilo, just that the word bara itself does not mean ex nihilo. Of course, the original work of creation had to come when there was nothing there before, except God, and since matter is not divine, has not come out of God, God must have created it from nothing ex nihilo. While the word bara tells us God shapes or forms something, it doesn't look at what it is formed from.

This is the passage:
So God created (bara) man in his own image, in the image of God created (bara) he him; male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:27)
It's the strongest language used to describe God's creative work. Adam was made (Strong's H6213 - `asah; Gen. 5:1) from the earth, which is preexisting obviously, but by God, who did it ex nihilo. It doesn't say directed, it doesn't say made (there are other words in the Hebrew for that)

If God made Adam from dust, then it simply wasn't ex nihilo. Ex nihilo means 'from nothing'.

Of course I remember, Genesis 1:1 is in the perfect sense of 'Qal'. Genesis 1:21, 27 are in the imperfect sense, thus, from the earth, an ex nihileo creation in that living creatures including man are created new. The word can take on a number of forms

Male and female created (bə·rā·’ām) he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created (hib·bā·rə·’ām). Gen. 5:2)
​

Only in Genesis 1:1 is it being used in the perfect sense. Even when it is being used in the imperfect sense the creation is ex nihileo. God created Eve from Adam's rib so the ex nihileo creation while not perfect is still not from a preexisting parent. Jesus quotes the Genesis account calling it 'the beginning'.
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female (Matt 19:4)

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the perfect tense. It simply tells you whether an action is completed, or is ongoing. It doesn't change the meaning of the verb. If you looked at the Hebrew of Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith, you would see that bara was qal perfect there too.

Israel was and is a miracle. In Ecclesiastes is just saying to remember your Creator while your young, not how you were created, Malachi is just saying that God created us, using the strongest possible term for Creator which is 'bara'.

Isn't the meaning of create in the word bara? If Ecclesiastes tells us the God created each one of us, then my birth was an act of creation by God, even though God used normal human biology. It is the same in Malachi. because God created all of us, we should be faithful to each other. The birth of Isaac may have been a miracle but God still used Abraham's sperm and Sarah's egg, his conception still involved the activity that made Sarah giggle. It was creation, it just wasn't ex nihilo.

It need not be in the perfect sense of being from absolutely nothing, in order to be an ex nihileo creation. The use of 'bara' does not allow for God using natural law as a tool for his creation of life any more then it would pagan elementals. The source of life on this planet is God, the Scriptures could not be any more emphatic or explicit in this regards.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Ecclesiastes tell us to remember that God is our creator, even though he used natural processes to create us, just as he used Mr and Mrs Smith to create the blacksmith.

 

[pshun2404]

Another piece of the puzzle...

The genomes of men and ape-kind have been sequenced. Form this it has become apparent that the chimp genome is clearly not as closely related to the human genome as believed (for many reasons) and yet it is still pushed by the Darwinian community into classroom curriculum content as an obvious truth this can only hinder the discovery of actual truth. Simply disregarding scientists or evidence which indicates a favored theory or hypothesis may be incorrect in part or in whole is also contrary to the pursuit of truth (sadly a human problem that cannot always be avoided).


Now then, in 2002 molecular Biologist Roy Britten showed the genomes' sequences differed by at least 5% percent instead of the 1-2% percent usually propagated (now that figure has grown to more like 6%). He called the neo-Darwinian view “the old saw” view and indicates their position was possibly deceptive or at best uninformed. Now it isn't that Britten does not accept evolution but just that he is saying a 5% genomic difference is actually quite huge and not barely discriminate as the "old saw" theory suggests.

It has been reported elsewhere that humans have three dozen unique protein coding genes no apes contain, and now we find that of the 244 newly discovered (last year) microRNA genes, 10% are also unique to humans (not found in any other primates). Chimps also have unique microRNA genes not found in any humans. Apparently, this "junk" might actually make the unique creature.

So how do you capture a unique chimp? Unique up on him...

But seriously, what this tells us is though the chimp and/or gorilla may be (may be’s never equal IS) the creature that most closely resembles us, evidence is accumulating which shows we most probably (most probably’s also do not equal IS) do not have a common ancestor with ape-kind. Even among the so called 24,000 “useful” genes there are no less than 1400 distinct differences between the human and ape genomes (not counting the many other differences within the so-called junk sections). We have no concept whatsoever of the vast differences in form and function that even just these alleged to be junk genes do make or how they define or reflect on the assumption by consensus of common descent as neo-Darwinians define it.

As Chet pointed out elsewhere, “…the light of Project ENCODE's discovery of millions of gene-control switches, many located in places of our genome that have been called junk, the entire "humans are X% similar to chimps" idea needs to be reevaluated.”

These issues do not even address the additional difference in basic chromosomal structure required to propagate…in the chromosomes it appears ape-kind may have evolved from human kind (depending if one interprets the differences by the concept of loss or gain…but maybe…just maybe…the forbidden possibility could be true and in fact each was always unique and separate from the time each suddenly appeared in the geological column of history)


Other researchers paid special attention to these discrepancies in gene numbers between humans and chimps. Using a statistical method, studying humans, these scientists focused on the 689 genes (possibly through the duplication of existing genes) that Chimps do not have. Others have numbered 729 such differences in Chimps (counted as lost genes). Plus we know without doubt that chimps have at least 86 unique genes that humans simply do not have.


So even if these genes were originally recessives, this would indicate they would still be there only non-functional but they are not there. Plus according to Mendel’s second law, if a true recessive, their traits would appear now and again in the Sapien lineage and vice versa which they do not.


Now again, interpreting the genes chimps lack as having been “lost” since divergence (how convenient an assumption is that?), and others seeing the additional human genes as having been “gained” (again a convenient assumption), is a great hypothesis, but we really do not know that? No…in fact both of these potential conclusions are total assumption based interpretations of the data (that we differ so greatly) so that the facts fit the predetermined theory. These ideas of loss or gain are interpolations (and in my opinion that taints the conclusion one can actually deduce…though I am sure it is usually not done intentionally since after all they went into the studies previously convinced by their mentors in school that these assumptions are correct, which unfortunately has biased the interpretation of much data). Although if true this brings the idea of mutational changes into question…see Human-chimp difference may be bigger


The over 24 human only microRNA genes present only in humans (that help code for and produce the form we call human) do not exist in ape-kind. Their set of these kinds of genetic material is totally different than that found in humans, and one could not exist within the other without major disturbance. There is zero actual evidence to suggest one was an evolvement of the other but that is what is suggested in standardized text books…I would suggest however all these students at his juncture (you may like them as well) should read some of the articles written by L.H. Caporale and others who show the genome more likely supports an anti-randomness position and a convergent evolutionary hypothesis as far as evolution theory is concerned (which Caporale supports). Convergent evolution says they evolved separately from unique common descent sources one Ape-kind one Human-kind.

Much to her surprise, her work suggests what’s called punctuated equilibria as the most viable explanation based purely on the evidence (a notion she never suspected would be biologically indicated). This means these changes within the types occurred suddenly and specifically within each creatures unique genome. From the evidence this is at least an equal possibility. That does not say or mean randomness does not occur, just that it is not the causative event of what we see at this time (outside of interpretation made to fit the theory). Now understand this, Caporale is not an ID scientist (though there are many who are, including Lander, the scientist who discovered and first mapped the genome from Whitehead (Broad) Institute here in Cambridge). This evidence suggests the sudden appearance of unique gene sets. This disputes the idea of gradual gain and/or loss based on the process of mutation and natural selection (as Darwin would have defined it) just as the sudden appearance in the geological column of new creatures refutes Darwinian gradualism on that level.


Another interesting article can be found in Science, called, Homoplasy: From Detecting Pattern to Determining Process and Mechanism of Evolution, by Wake, Wake, and Specht (February 2011, Vol. 331 no. 6020 pp. 1032-1035), who also found evidence for a convergent evolution of new unique types of genomes, which again contradicts the previous general assumption which colored previous interpretations.

In Nomogenesis, MIT Press, pg.406, author Lev Berg writes "The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard." This, if eventually proven to be correct (an opinion Berg himself does not support at this time), would demonstrate our earliest ancestor was only human and not related to ape-kind at all. Each therefore being a unique “suddenly appearing” line of genetic descent. General similarity therefore (usually associated and called homology) would be evolving simultaneously in distinctly different taxa, and not because they are related or came from one another. This would mean that just because some reptiles and some mammals also had wings does not mean they came from birds or that birds came from them.


Now as I said, Berg does not support this opinion, but at least he does not try and just disregard the mounting evidence and growing opinion demonstrating this possibility as if it were some creationist notion, but as a rational scientist he treats it (as all honest objective scientists should) as equally plausible scientific evidence that must be explored further even if this shows the previous theory to be revised. Berg knows we do not have the answer in common descent as the end all established fact! It is however the most commonly accepted interpretation at this time, but we must not forget the indirect programming one receives by this “old saw” as being essential to passing one’s courses at a college and university level. Well anyway, I can only commend Berg for his intellectual integrity.


Paul

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes I use it Blue Letter Bible myself.

Seems like I've been using it since I started coming on the internet in the 90s.

You also quote from Vine's dictionary. Have you read the introduction to the Old Testament section of his dictionary, written by F. F. Bruce?

This expository dictionary carries Old Testament words not previously published in the format done so well by W. E. Vine in his original work. When Mr. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words had been finally seen through the press, he turned his attention to a similar project on Old Testament words. He made no claim to the kind of expert mastery of Hebrew that he had of Greek, but he had been for many years a careful student of the Hebrew Bible. At the time of his death in November, 1949, he left in manuscript the material contained here. The words which are treated in this edition are, for the most part, words of theological importance, but the list includes some technical terms and other words of general interest. Readers who have profited by Mr. Vine's Greek word studies will be glad to have this selection of word studiesin the Old Testament.

F. F. Bruce
​

I made no claim that he was an expert master of Hebrew but then again, none was needed.

I mentioned Merrill Unger and William White because the are credited as authors in my copy, they actually did the editing. There's a list of a dozen or so contributors inside the cover and while I don't see the relevance, the introduction in my copy was done by William White. You guys do this, undermining the credibility of any source you just don't like. Had you bothered to offer a relevant alternative exposition or provided a more substantive source it would be different. Disparaging Vine because he wasn't some kind of exegetical Hebrew expert is pointless. You can easily forget why I made my original statement that Vine's is above reproach but I won't. It's because the definition in Vine's is adequate for the exposition and theological insight needed in one of these discussion. There is no need to go into the syntax a far more technical exegetical work would because we are not translating from the original, that has already been done.

I went back and read the introduction again, the history of the language is actually very interesting. It describes the transition of the Aramaic from the original Semitic, through the adoption of the Phonetician style fonts. Apparently during the Medieval period vowels were added to make the language more readable and there was a lot about the construction and grammar of the Hebrew. The point of this criticism is not to better understand the Hebrew language of the original, the point your going to make is to dismiss the definition of Vine's as some private interpretation.

Vine's views on bara are just a word study, the personal views from someone who was not and did not claim to be an expert in Hebrew.

Nonsense. We are not dealing with the exegetical construction or semantics of the text, we are simply talking about what the word means.

In terms of other OT lexicons, Blue Letter Bible doesn't just give you an abbreviated version of BDB, it also gives you Gesenius's Lexicon. You can see the full entry if you hit the 'Click Here for the Rest of the Entry'. As you can see, it make no mention of bara meaning ex nihilo. Strong's says:

H1254
בּרא
ba[FONT=&quot]̂[/FONT]ra[FONT=&quot]̂[/FONT]'
baw-raw'
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).
​

Again no mention of bara meaning ex nihilo. If you want to check a modern lexicon there is HALOT (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament) by Köhler, Baumgartner and Stamm. You can read the entry for bara here.

If you like the entry from HALOT then quote it and make your point. I can't read the rest of the entry from your link because all it leads to is the CF main menu. Bara is clearly an nihilo creation and so far you have no argument to the contrary. Disparaging the work of Christian scholars is really nothing more then another ad hominem. As is the case with virtually all Theistic Evolutionists arguments it's simply an antithetical view of creation offering no genuine insight into the meaning of the original.

Again there is no suggestion that bara means ex nihilo. That is not to say that God's original work of creation wasn't ex nihilo, just that the word bara itself does not mean ex nihilo. Of course, the original work of creation had to come when there was nothing there before, except God, and since matter is not divine, has not come out of God, God must have created it from nothing ex nihilo. While the word bara tells us God shapes or forms something, it doesn't look at what it is formed from.

You missing the point here, ex nihilo is an expression meaning a new creation. Often times dictionary writers and expositors borrow the phrase from the Latin to express the meaning in readily available terms communicating the general meaning. Now, as to whether or not it's an absolute 'out of nothing' we really don't know. The Genesis 1:1 use of 'bara' is in the perfect sense which would seem to indicate that God did not produce it from preexisting material and the implication here is that before this creation there was absolutely nothing. It doesn't mean it came materially from God, but that God created it and that was the only point of origin for the universe.

There is nothing more that needs to be understood about the use of 'bara' in the opening verse. The universe did not exist and then it did. I like the bumper sticker that says I believe in the Big Bang, God spoke and BANG!, there it was. That's the meaning and it's the only time in this account that it is in the perfect sense probably because just as Adam was created 'from dust' the other living creatures were created from the earth as well.

If God made Adam from dust, then it simply wasn't ex nihilo. Ex nihilo means 'from nothing'.

Yes it is ex nihilo, just not a perfect ex nihilo. Adam was created by 'miraculous interpolation' with no lineage of any kind except for an act of God in creation. This is the clear meaning intended by Moses and confirmed in no uncertain terms in the New Testament. It's not that hard to understand, you either believe it or you don't.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the perfect tense. It simply tells you whether an action is completed, or is ongoing. It doesn't change the meaning of the verb. If you looked at the Hebrew of Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith, you would see that bara was qal perfect there too.

I understand the meaning just fine and BTW, there is no such thing as a 'tense' in Hebrew. Not trying to be picky here, it just means that the subject is embedded into the verb, it's really just how it's constructed. I think the reason for the use is that God is inextricably linked to the act of creation and the writer wanted to emphasis this in the strongest possible terms.

In the pagan mythologies of the time around the Mediterranean the gods did not create the universe. The god's were themselves created by the elementals, (earth, air, fire, water). The universe had a starting point, life had a starting point, mankind had a starting point, only God is the Unmoved Mover, the primary cause of all creation. That's the meaning and it requires no great knowledge and insight to realize that.

Isn't the meaning of create in the word bara? If Ecclesiastes tells us the God created each one of us, then my birth was an act of creation by God, even though God used normal human biology. It is the same in Malachi. because God created all of us, we should be faithful to each other. The birth of Isaac may have been a miracle but God still used Abraham's sperm and Sarah's egg, his conception still involved the activity that made Sarah giggle. It was creation, it just wasn't ex nihilo.

God did create us, he created us in the bara sense 'in Adam', we originally sinned in the same way. The birth of Isaac was a miracle just as the incarnation was, a miracle not unlike the absolute creation of Genesis 1, just not in the perfect sense since there we actual material precursors.

Ecclesiastes tell us to remember that God is our creator, even though he used natural processes to create us, just as he used Mr and Mrs Smith to create the blacksmith.

As indeed the New Testament warns us not to forget the Creator, for this reason:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (Romans 1:21,22)​

When it says 'they' it means us in case you didn't know that. We still have a choice if were are going to continue to be enslaved by our Adamic nature:

To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:6,7)​

Christian conduct, which is the fruit of your salvation, is predicated on it:

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. (Eph. 5:21)​

Understand, this isn't just a minor difference of opinion regarding natural history. The Scriptures are not just some pithy devotional poetry. It's a living history. As William White expresses it:

The Hebrew Bible contains the continuous history of civilization from Creation to Roman times. It is the only record of God's dealings with humanity through His prophets, priests and kings. In addition, it is the only ancient religious document that has survived completely intact. (William White, Introduction to Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words)​

The truth is I'm running out of time for these discussions. At one time this kind of debate and discussion was a pass time, usually when I was working a lot. When you work like 60 70 hours a week you don't have a lot of time and energy for getting out much. That's how I got into this and I've enjoyed some downtime lately so I have simply been indulging myself in an old pass time.

Times running out buddy, I simply am not going to have a lot of time in the near future for chasing these arguments in circles. Your discussion in the last post was actually pretty thoughtful and in the last several posts you obviously put some work into it. I assume from you discussion of the introduction by Bruce that you own a Vine's and use it, I think that's great. I must warn you though, it's not a healthy attitude to dismiss what is difficult to believe in the Bible as someone else's opinion. There are a ton of things I struggled with including the Trinity as a matter of act but I never dismissed this doctrine, I just didn't understand it.

Creation is like that I think but it's still vital doctrine and caution is strongly advised. I think you believe what you are saying in these discussions and I don't think that your views are necessarily harmful to you are anyone you interact with. I personally find it an interesting exercise in exposition and evidential apologetics. Just bear in mind, the purpose of Christians joining together is to build up the body of Christ, not to disparage essential doctrine. Perhaps you should give some thought to the positive beliefs of Christian conviction and qualify your views with an expression of faith in the integrity of Scripture that gives us our only history of God's work down through the ages.

Nothing is lost and much is gained by exploring the sciences, the life science have emerged as one of the leading sciences of our day. Genetics in particular, with it's relatively brief history as a science (just over 50 years) has moved progress in the medical field ahead by leaps and bounds. I remember when cancer was pretty much a death sentence, it was just a matter of time before it claimed your life. Now more and more people are surviving it and Genetics has had a key role in that.

We have not been talking about the genuine article of science in the whole creation/evolution thing and that is regrettable. We seldom get into detailed expositions and exegesis of the texts because such things tend to be virtually useless in these arguments. What is argued here are worldviews, some Christian and some like Darwinism are worldly philosophies completely at odds with the clear testimony of Scripture.

This isn't intended to be an indictment or a rebuke, I honestly believe you mean well. I just think you should consider a more positive approach to the subject matter and earn the right to challenge peoples personal convictions. All our interactions with one another should be done in 'the fear of the Lord', submitting to one another as those who much give an account. It will be of far greater significance and consequence is the final analysis and perhaps even forgotten entirely when the final revelation is received and we no longer have to look at these things through a glass darkly.

Thanks for the exchange but it's hard to say how much time I might have for these discussions in the future. I intend to submit an application for moderator and if it goes through I think I will be spending the bulk of my time focused on that and some other things I have neglected while indulging myself in these debates.

I bear you no malice and wish you great success in your studies despite our many differences.

Grace and peace,
Mark​