Do Creationists Believe in Talking Snakes?

[FaithT]

Thanks Hope1960.

May God bless you today.

You too, and Hoppy Easter to you and yours.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't really care if the Earth is old. Because that doesn't affect the subject. I think the big bang confirms a creator. But I believe life on earth is very young, relatively speaking.

Why bother even believing that life is young and earth is old, if life's fossils are found in the oldest rocks on earth? It wouldn't make any sense.

If earth were old and fossils were in the superpositionally deepest and therefore oldest rocks of earth, then it would mandate that life itself were old. Unless perhaps someone thought that earth is old, whole simultaneously believing that something like paleozoic rock were only recently formed. Which would mean that their belief in an old earth isn't based on anything objective, but rather was just perhaps a whim.

If you believe that life is young, then it must logically follow that the earth too must be young. Or at least drastically younger than anything proposed by any field of science.

So for practical purposes, you're a young earther.

 

[renniks]

So for practical purposes, you're a young earther.

I am what I am. Not what you say I am, Komedycon!

 

[Dale]

I was taught that the serpent had legs but God decreed that the serpent would lose its legs as a punishment for tempting Eve. I notice that in this thread no one takes the notion of legs on the serpent seriously. Some argue that God said that the serpent would crawl after the Expulsion from Eden, and that this has nothing to do with legs. I don’t see how this adds up. If the serpent didn’t crawl before God’s punishment, it would have to have legs to hold its body above the ground.

All this is apparently an attempt to avoid the point made in the OP. The serpent could talk in Eden and yet there are no talking snakes today, and neither did God say that the serpent would lose its voice or its intelligence.

While creationists in this thread find it inconvenient to admit that the serpent had legs in Eden, it has often been shown that way by artists.

 

[Dale]

Here's the image I was trying to show above.

 

[Dale]

 

[Dale]

First, Revelation 20:2 refers to the Devil or Satan as that old serpent. For it is written:

“And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,” (Revelation 20:2).​

Second, both Isaiah 14:12-19 and Ezekiel 28:12-19 goes beyond talking about kings but it refers to the Devil.

We learn in the Ezekiel 28 passage that the devil was in the garden of Eden.

12 “Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.” (Ezekiel 28:12-19).​

Besides, possesion of animals is not a foreign concept to Scripture. Jesus cast legion (a group of demons) into a bunch of swine (pigs) because they requested it.

Anyways, it is a dangerous thing to allegorize Scripture when there is no clear indication that such is the case. Next thing you know, folks will start to allegorize Jesus because He had risen from the grave. The Bible is full of the miraculous. You either accept it at face value or you don't. The choice is yours.

Highlighter: “… Ezekiel 28:12-19 goes beyond talking about kings but it refers to the Devil.
We learn in the Ezekiel 28 passage that the devil was in the garden of Eden.”

If you were to take that passage to mean that Satan was in Eden, it would seem to be to be a general statement that Satan was in Paradise before the fall, and not specifically in the Garden with Adam and Eve. It turns out that there are considerable reasons to doubt that it refers to Satan at all.

In Ezekiel 28:14, “ thou wast upon the holy mountain of God” has been taken to mean by many that Satan was in Heaven before the Fall of the Rebel Angels.

From Zondervan’s NIV Bible Commentary on the Old Testament:

<< The “holy mountain of God” is never used in Scripture to mean heaven, which would have to be its interpretation if the king of Tyre is identified with Satan. >>

Instead: << The phrase “holy mount” is consistently used to describe Jerusalem and/or Zion as the central place of worship ... >>

Does the mention of Eden help us choose between whether the passage tells of Satan or the King of Tyre?

<< This individual was also declared to have been in “Eden, the Garden of God. The word “God” could refer either to the true God or to a god. “Eden” may refer to the Paradise described in Ge 1-3. It probably is a simile to portray the splendor of a given geographical area, its most common use. >>

The “God” here may be the Hebrew God or simply a pagan god, and the mention of Eden could simply mean that this earthly king has a well kept garden in his palace.

Zondervan’s commentary on Ezekiel 28 concludes:

<< The most logical and expected understanding of this section is to see it as Ezekiel’s funeral lament for Tyre’s king. >>

Highlighter: “Anyways, it is a dangerous thing to allegorize Scripture when there is no clear indication that such is the case.”

It looks like those who would insert the history of Satan into a narrative about a King of Tyre are the ones who are allegorizing Scripture.

 

[Job 33:6]

View attachment 297274

Is that from the creation museum?

 

[Dale]

Is that from the creation museum?

Sorry, I really don't know the location. You're right, it sounds like something they would have. I was just pointing out that traditionally the pre-fall snake has been pictured with legs.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Highlighter: “… Ezekiel 28:12-19 goes beyond talking about kings but it refers to the Devil.
We learn in the Ezekiel 28 passage that the devil was in the garden of Eden.”

If you were to take that passage to mean that Satan was in Eden, it would seem to be to be a general statement that Satan was in Paradise before the fall, and not specifically in the Garden with Adam and Eve. It turns out that there are considerable reasons to doubt that it refers to Satan at all.

In Ezekiel 28:14, “ thou wast upon the holy mountain of God” has been taken to mean by many that Satan was in Heaven before the Fall of the Rebel Angels.

From Zondervan’s NIV Bible Commentary on the Old Testament:

<< The “holy mountain of God” is never used in Scripture to mean heaven, which would have to be its interpretation if the king of Tyre is identified with Satan. >>

Instead: << The phrase “holy mount” is consistently used to describe Jerusalem and/or Zion as the central place of worship ... >>

Does the mention of Eden help us choose between whether the passage tells of Satan or the King of Tyre?

<< This individual was also declared to have been in “Eden, the Garden of God. The word “God” could refer either to the true God or to a god. “Eden” may refer to the Paradise described in Ge 1-3. It probably is a simile to portray the splendor of a given geographical area, its most common use. >>

The “God” here may be the Hebrew God or simply a pagan god, and the mention of Eden could simply mean that this earthly king has a well kept garden in his palace.

Zondervan’s commentary on Ezekiel 28 concludes:

<< The most logical and expected understanding of this section is to see it as Ezekiel’s funeral lament for Tyre’s king. >>

Highlighter: “Anyways, it is a dangerous thing to allegorize Scripture when there is no clear indication that such is the case.”

It looks like those who would insert the history of Satan into a narrative about a King of Tyre are the ones who are allegorizing Scripture.

It's clear that Isaiah 14, and Ezekiel 28 are referring to Satan. There is no way the king was in the Garden of Eden. So this was in reference to Satan. But I can only lead a horse to water, I cannot force it to drink.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I think it is time for me to move on.

May God bless you all.

 

[East of Eden]

It would be no more a miracle for God to make a serpent speak than that humans speak. You don't believe Gen. 1-3, what other parts to you not believe? You believe God can't make a snake speak, but nothing X nobody (evolution) can make humans speak?

Your God is too small.

 

[Dale]

Now, I just read that some fish (few) are able to walk on land. So, from a Biblical perspective, how can this be? Many scientists say that some fish evolved but is that macro or micro evolution?

In Florida we have “walking catfish.” They are really an invasive species and I’m not sure exactly where they came from. They can climb out of one pond and travel one or two hundred feet to the next pond without much difficulty.

“A few ostariophysians have the capability to emerge from their aquatic abode and move over land, climb walls, or even fly through the air. The walking catfish (Clarias batrachus), recently introduced into southern Florida, uses its pectoral-fin spines as anchors to prevent jackknifing as its body musculature produces snakelike movements and can progress remarkable distances over dry land. Using suction disks and fins, the mountain-stream catfishes (Sisoridae and Astroblepidae) can climb vertical rock walls above the water surface. ”

Encyclopedia Britannica 2009 under Ostariophysan

 

[Job 33:6]

In Florida we have “walking catfish.” They are really an invasive species and I’m not sure exactly where they came from. They can climb out of one pond and travel one or two hundred feet to the next pond without much difficulty.

“A few ostariophysians have the capability to emerge from their aquatic abode and move over land, climb walls, or even fly through the air. The walking catfish (Clarias batrachus), recently introduced into southern Florida, uses its pectoral-fin spines as anchors to prevent jackknifing as its body musculature produces snakelike movements and can progress remarkable distances over dry land. Using suction disks and fins, the mountain-stream catfishes (Sisoridae and Astroblepidae) can climb vertical rock walls above the water surface. ”

Encyclopedia Britannica 2009 under Ostariophysan

Reminds me of my old home in Georgia.

 

[Dale]

It would be no more a miracle for God to make a serpent speak than that humans speak. You don't believe Gen. 1-3, what other parts to you not believe? You believe God can't make a snake speak, but nothing X nobody (evolution) can make humans speak?

Your God is too small.

EastEden: “It would be no more a miracle for God to make a serpent speak than that humans speak.”

Genesis doesn’t say that the speaking serpent was a miracle. It says: “Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.”

God wouldn’t do a miracle to deceive Eve. Many of the creationists on this thread believe that Satan made the serpent speak, or that the serpent was possessed by the Devil or a demonic manifestation. I don’t believe the Devil can do miracles.

The question I asked is, if there were talking snakes in a historical Eden, why don’t we still have them today? We don’t, and that leads me to believe that Eden was not historical, it is a parable for our instruction.

EastEden: “You don't believe Gen. 1-3, what other parts to you not believe?”

You are making unfounded accusations. I wouldn’t spend so much time studying the Bible if I didn’t take it seriously.

EastEden: “Your God is too small.”

I recognize Your God Is Too Small as a famous and influential book by J.B. Phillips. I have heard it recommended in a Baptist Church and I have read some of it.

 

[Dale]

We should always first establish truth by the Bible first.

#1. Jesus referred to Adam and Eve in the beginning because he refers back to Genesis chapter 2 with the first phrase used for the first man and woman in joining together as one flesh as huband and wife. The man is told that he shall leave father and mother and cleave unto his wife.

For Jesus said:
“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mark 10:6-9).

In Genesis 2, it states:
“And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:23-24).​

#2. Luke 11:50-51 says, “That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias,...”

Notice the passage does not talk about from the time of monkeys, or ape like men, or a pool of slime in connection to the foundation of the world. Here we see Scripture tie in “the foundation of the world” with the words, “from the blood of Abel”; Which suggests that Abel was not too far off from the time or period since the “foundation of the world” which has been laid by God in Genesis chapter 1. Evolution is an obvious deception or lie of the enemy to try and deceive unbelievers into explaining a world without God. It's so obvious. The world's way of thinking is not God's way of thinking.​

#3. The genealogy of Jesus Christ from Mary's line to Adam can be traced (or read) in Luke 3:23-38.

If we are to read Scripture literally and or normally like a child, there is no real room for millions of years. For we can read about how the line of Jesus can be traced all the way back to Adam in Luke 3. I do not see a correct number of ancestors listed that would support a “millions of years type ancestory” in Luke 3, and nor do I see any mention of how there was any ancestors in Christ's line being left out, either. To say so otherwise is simply to add to the text.
​

#4. Death clearly happened as a result of the Fall and not before the Fall.

There is no mention of sin or death entering the world before the Fall of Adam.
Plus, Romans 5:12 says that death was a result of one man's sin (Which was by Adam).

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” (Romans 5:12).

This is confirmed in the fact that God told Adam if he were to eat of the wrong tree, he would die that day (See: Genesis 2:17).

But if you believe in an Old Earth, death happened before the Fall of Adam. But this kind of thinking goes against the plain teaching of the Bible.​

In fact, the belief in a Young Earth is what a normal person would have in a normal reading and study of the Scriptures. The only reason you would want to believe in an Old Earth is because of what secular science says and not what the Bible says.

Most Christians (such as myself) who stand behind the Global Flood, believe the Earth to be thousands of years in age and not millions of years old because they know the Bible and ancient civilizations to have been recorded as being only thousands of years in age. Christians also know the Earth to be young because the tremendous amount of evidence that supports a world wide Global Flood, too. In fact, this does not include the other different categories of evidences that back up the Scriptures, as well.

Anyways, when secular scientists date fossils and rock layers, they don't factor in the Global Flood into their findings. They make assumptions that the world is millions of years old and then date things accordingly. How do I know they make such wrong assumptions? Well, secular scientists had dated the findings of a recently erupted volcano to be a million years old. This means that they are biased towards dating things to be Old. Also, secular scientists claim that many rocks layers are millions of years in age, yet trees have been found growing through out these rock layers, though. Secular scientists also ignore the fact that seashells on top of mountains would have not gotten blasted away by the elements if they were sitting up there for millions of years, too. In fact, seashells on top of mountains all over the world is one of the many incredible proofs that support a Global Flood and a Young Earth. Also, there are over 270 Flood Legends all over the world (With a good portion of them paralleling the various facts within Genesis). Fossil graveyards have been found buried all over the world. Trees have been fossilized standing up all over the world. Man's denial of a Global Flood (i.e. Secular Scientists and atheists) having fulfilled New Testament prophecy (2 Peter 2:3-6); And the list goes on and on.

However, what is the real problem with Old Earth Creationism?

Well, Old Earth Creationism not only does not line up with the scientific facts but it also sides itself with Secular Historical Science (of which cannot be proven because we do not have a time machine to actually show it's real age). However, the real problem with Old Earth Creationism is that it is a model that came about from Macro-Evolution (Darwinism); And under the world view of Macro-Evolution (Darwinism) you can technically do what is good and right in your own eyes. This is called "Moral Relativism" and it leads to chaos. In fact, under this World View: A person could say that when they murder someone, they are just one single celled organism eliminating another single celled organism by Natural Selection or survival. On the other hand, if a person were to believe in the Bible, they would be held accountable to a Creator God and a high moral code that tells them there is a right and a wrong.


Side Note:

Also, the two major theories to explain an Old Earth do not fit with a normal reading of the Bible. The Day Age Theory does not work because God defines a day in Genesis 1 as a 24 hour day with saying that day has an evening and a morning. The Gap Theory does not work because Scripture does not mention elsewhere about this Gap Theory clearly tying it in with Genesis chapter 1. To add to God's Word is dangerous and there are warnings against it at the end of our Bible (i.e. Revelation 22:18).

BH: “We should always first establish truth by the Bible first.”

The Bible is not a text of history, geography, or any of the sciences.

BH:<< #4. Death clearly happened as a result of the Fall and not before the Fall.

There is no mention of sin or death entering the world before the Fall of Adam.
Plus, Romans 5:12 says that death was a result of one man's sin (Which was by Adam).
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” (Romans 5:12).
This is confirmed in the fact that God told Adam if he were to eat of the wrong tree, he would die that day (See: Genesis 2:17).
But if you believe in an Old Earth, death happened before the Fall of Adam. But this kind of thinking goes against the plain teaching of the Bible. >>


I notice that you interpret Genesis by referring to Romans. I would recommend that you study each book and section of the Bible to see what it means. What did it mean to people when it was written, or composed? What did it mean to the target audience?

You point to Romans as evidence that death was not part of God’s plan before the Expulsion from Eden. Paul isn’t talking about the death of animals and plants. He isn’t talking about physical death, he is talking about spiritual death. You are taking his words out of context to draw uncalled for conclusions from other parts of the Bible.


BH: “The Day Age Theory does not work because God defines a day in Genesis 1 as a 24 hour day with saying that day has an evening and a morning.”

Take a look at this verse.

For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just
gone by, or like a watch in the night.
Psalm 90:4 NIV



If someone wrote that today, they would probably say millions or billions instead of thousands.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

BH: “We should always first establish truth by the Bible first.”

The Bible is not a text of history, geography, or any of the sciences.

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about.
The Bible has been historically, and scientifically verified.

Just check out my Blogger article here to learn more about the many evidences that back up God's Word in many ways.

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

BH:<< #4. Death clearly happened as a result of the Fall and not before the Fall.

There is no mention of sin or death entering the world before the Fall of Adam.
Plus, Romans 5:12 says that death was a result of one man's sin (Which was by Adam).
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” (Romans 5:12).
This is confirmed in the fact that God told Adam if he were to eat of the wrong tree, he would die that day (See: Genesis 2:17).
But if you believe in an Old Earth, death happened before the Fall of Adam. But this kind of thinking goes against the plain teaching of the Bible. >>

I notice that you interpret Genesis by referring to Romans. I would recommend that you study each book and section of the Bible to see what it means. What did it mean to people when it was written, or composed? What did it mean to the target audience?

You point to Romans as evidence that death was not part of God’s plan before the Expulsion from Eden. Paul isn’t talking about the death of animals and plants. He isn’t talking about physical death, he is talking about spiritual death. You are taking his words out of context to draw uncalled for conclusions from other parts of the Bible.

1 Corinthians 15 also parallels Romans 5.

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22).

This death mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15 is also speaking clearly of physical death, as well.

“...Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 15:54-57).

So while it is true that Adam died spiritually the day he ate of the wrong tree, physical death was also the result of the Fall, as well. For God kept Adam from eating of the tree of life (Which would make him immortal). So while immortality was not natural to Adam before the Fall, we also do not witness anything dying before the Fall, either.

Spiritual death is a parallel of Physical Death.

Physical Death is a punishment from God. We see this plenty in the Old Testament Law of Moses. We even see physical death as a form of punishment in the New Testament. Ananais and Sapphira were each killed physically (physical death) as a form of punishment for lying to the Holy Spirit. So physical death is not a natural process that God planned to have as a part of His good universe. For if Adam and Eve obeyed, they would have been able to eat of the tree of life. So physical death was in Adam and Eve's destiny because they sinned.

BH: “The Day Age Theory does not work because God defines a day in Genesis 1 as a 24 hour day with saying that day has an evening and a morning.”

Take a look at this verse.

For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just
gone by, or like a watch in the night.
Psalm 90:4 NIV

This is speaking how a day is LIKE a thousand years to God. This does not mean that the literal days being describe are thousands of years for the rest of us. This is especially true seeing the day is defined as a 24 hour day in the fact that the day has an evening and morning.

If someone wrote that today, they would probably say millions or billions instead of thousands.

The Bible is not open to it being re-written to our own imaginations. You either accept what it says, or you don't. It doesn't sound like you are accepting what the Bible plainly says when it comes to Science.

You basically love Evolution and Millions of years and you are trying to cram these ideas into the Bible where they don't belong. Nobody reads the Bible and comes away with thinking Evolution or Millions of years for the age of the Earth. It's just not in the text.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't really care if the Earth is old. Because that doesn't affect the subject. I think the big bang confirms a creator. But I believe life on earth is very young, relatively speaking.

So in our prior posts, we had discussed the fossil succession. Lower layers of the paleozoic contain invertebrates, fish, arthropods etc. As we rise up to shallower layers of the paleozoic, we find amphibians by the mid devonian, eventually reptiles by the carboniferous. We find birds and mammals as move through the mesozoic, then mammalian and bird diversification as we move through the cenozoic. And between each major group we find hybrid-like animals. Examples might include those like Tiktaalik and other early tetrapods and love finned fish of the devonian, frogamander and amphibians with reptile traits of the carboniferous, , para aves and theropod feathered dinosaurs of the triassic and jurassic, the reptile to mammal sequence through the permian and triassic, late mammalian diversification of horses, cetacean to whale transitions, paleomastodon, gompotherium etc of the elephant transition, mega fauna etc of the cenozoic.

We also find transitions in plant fossils with non vascular plants being succeeded by vascular plants, succeeded further by seeded plants and further still by flowering plants. So this succession of fossils also exists in plants.

So we have this series of fossils as we go from the deepest of layers to the shallowest of layers.

Then, if it is not of interest to you to discuss, we can move past the discussion of if the earth is old.

In combination we have a vast amount of time with a series of fossils found in rocks of this old earth, suggesting that life itself spanned a vast amount of time, given that fossils are in these very rocks that make up an old earth.

So the remaining question becomes, what is responsible for this transition or sequence of fossils?

 

[Job 33:6]

So in our prior posts, we had discussed the fossil succession. Lower layers of the paleozoic contain invertebrates, fish, arthropods etc. As we rise up to shallower layers of the paleozoic, we find amphibians by the mid devonian, eventually reptiles by the carboniferous. We find birds and mammals as move through the mesozoic, then mammalian and bird diversification as we move through the cenozoic. And between each major group we find hybrid-like animals. Examples might include those like Tiktaalik and other early tetrapods and love finned fish of the devonian, frogamander and amphibians with reptile traits of the carboniferous, , para aves and theropod feathered dinosaurs of the triassic and jurassic, the reptile to mammal sequence through the permian and triassic, late mammalian diversification of horses, cetacean to whale transitions, paleomastodon, gompotherium etc of the elephant transition, mega fauna etc of the cenozoic.

We also find transitions in plant fossils with non vascular plants being succeeded by vascular plants, succeeded further by seeded plants and further still by flowering plants. So this succession of fossils also exists in plants.

So we have this series of fossils as we go from the deepest of layers to the shallowest of layers.

Then, if it is not of interest to you to discuss, we can move past the discussion of if the earth is old.

In combination we have a vast amount of time with a series of fossils found in rocks of this old earth, suggesting that life itself spanned a vast amount of time, given that fossils are in these very rocks that make up an old earth.

So the remaining question becomes, what is responsible for this transition or sequence of fossils?

View attachment 297328

Which leads us to the argument of summation:

That we find that the order of fossils and plants that we find in the earth is a 1 to 1 match with the order observed in cladistics of comparative anatomy, morphology, cytochrome C studies, erv studies, protein studies, genome sequences, paleogeographic and much much more.

Which is to say that if the fossils depict a sequence of invertebrate>fish>amphibian>reptile>bird/mammal it follows that if we sequence DNA of modern living animals, we would see this very same order of similarity and differences in our own DNA.

And so it is. Fish are genetically more similar to amphibians than they are to reptiles, birds or mammals. Birds are genetically more similar to reptiles than they are to amphibians or fish.

But it gets more specific even on a micro-level. Whales are more genetically similar to Ungulate mammals (things like elephants and hippos) than they are even to fish for example.

And again, the same continues with plants, with flowering plants being more genetically similar to seeded plants than to non vascular plants.

And this order continues in paleogeographic distributions of marsupials across south america, into antarctica and over to australia.

The order continues through cladistics of comparative anatomy, the anatomy of lobe finned fish resembles that of amphibious tetrapods more than birds or mammals.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

[renniks]

So in our prior posts, we had discussed the fossil succession. Lower layers of the paleozoic contain invertebrates, fish, arthropods etc. As we rise up to shallower layers of the paleozoic, we find amphibians by the mid devonian, eventually reptiles by the carboniferous. We find birds and mammals as move through the mesozoic, then mammalian and bird diversification as we move through the cenozoic. And between each major group we find hybrid-like animals. Examples might include those like Tiktaalik and other early tetrapods and love finned fish of the devonian, frogamander and amphibians with reptile traits of the carboniferous, , para aves and theropod feathered dinosaurs of the triassic and jurassic, the reptile to mammal sequence through the permian and triassic, late mammalian diversification of horses, cetacean to whale transitions, paleomastodon, gompotherium etc of the elephant transition, mega fauna etc of the cenozoic.

We also find transitions in plant fossils with non vascular plants being succeeded by vascular plants, succeeded further by seeded plants and further still by flowering plants. So this succession of fossils also exists in plants.

So we have this series of fossils as we go from the deepest of layers to the shallowest of layers.

Then, if it is not of interest to you to discuss, we can move past the discussion of if the earth is old.

In combination we have a vast amount of time with a series of fossils found in rocks of this old earth, suggesting that life itself spanned a vast amount of time, given that fossils are in these very rocks that make up an old earth.

So the remaining question becomes, what is responsible for this transition or sequence of fossils?

View attachment 297328

eThe fossil record is hardly “the record of life in the geologic past” that so many scientists incorrectly espouse, assuming a long prehistory for the earth and life on it. Instead, it is a record of the deaths of countless billions of animals and plants.

Most of the sedimentary rock layers were deposited rapidly. Indeed, the impeccable state of preservation of most fossils requires the animals and plants to have been very rapidly buried, by vast amounts of sediments before decay could destroy them.

So the animals and plants buried and fossilized in those rock layers may well have all lived at about the same time and then have been rapidly buried progressively and sequentially.

There are very thick sequences of rock layers, found below the main strata record containing prolific fossils, which are either totally devoid of fossils or only contain very rare fossils of microorganisms and minor invertebrates. In the biblical framework of earth history, these strata would be classified as creation week and pre-Flood.
What conclusions you come to depend on your overall belief about the history of the earth.