Does science change?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No I don't think God uses random mutations, he created molecular mechanisms for that purpose like this one:

CRISPR is actually an ancient bacterial defense system. It's like an immune system for bacteria, which is surprising because for a long time, scientists didn't think bacteria had adaptive immune systems. But in 1987, some Japanese scientists were looking for something in DNA, and they saw this weird group of nucleotides, pieces of DNA. They had no idea what they were doing and what they meant and what their function was. And in a piece they published in The Journal of Bacteriology, the last sentence literally was, and we saw this weird, crazy group of nucleotides, and we have no idea what they're doing there. And that was that. And that was not for a very long time. (New Gene-Editing Techniques Hold the Promise Of Altering The Fundamentals Of Life. NPR)​

That's not how adaptive evolution works, the traits that become the driving force of adaptations are found in the gene pools, not dysfunctional genetic copy errors. Mutations cause frameshifts in protein coding genes, regulatory genes, they result in disease and disorder. When they are talking about mutations in these research projects they are actually describing things like: domain shuffling, changes in regulation of gene expression, gene duplication and subsequent neofunctionalization, horizontal gene transfer or gene fusion. (PloS May 5, 2016)

I remember the good ole Nylon eating bug argument, when I looked into it I found it was the result of a reading frame being swapped out. It was never really the result of a mutation, bacteria could make changes in the functionality of proteins involved in metabolism causing an adaptive change.

Why doesn't a reading frame being swapped out count as a mutation?

 

[NobleMouse]

Mutations plainly happened before mankind and there was predation and death before mankind and so our theology needs to be adjusted to take these truths into account. Perhaps, for example, where there is no eternal soul involved, the death doesn't matter. Perhaps, for example, where Adam's sin brought death, it is death for humans that is being addressed.

Hi Paul, hope you had a good weekend! The idea that animals, as you put it, "perhaps" have not eternal soul is a little bit speculative - though I've heard of this idea before from other OEC's so you are not alone by any means in this view. I believe the YEC view is also somewhat speculative in that we believe animals would not have been experiencing literally billions of years of death prior to the arrival of man yet God said creation was 'very good', by His standard of 'very good.' I am drawn to Isaiah 65:25 where it is said of heaven:

"The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,” says the Lord."

This tells us that there are animals in heaven, and while it does not address whether they have a soul, it does suggest that animals have a place in God's eternal kingdom and they are special to Him (as there will be nothing that is not special to God, in heaven). So, I find it difficult to say we should change our theology on the basis of something never said in the Bible (the Bible never says animals died before sin), and there are several clues both inside and outside of scripture that suggests the effects of sin spread beyond man:

1. See Romans 8:18-22 ("...For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now"). The 'whole creation' is pretty all inclusive. How would it be that there is childbirth pains for all of creation if the original sin only had consequences to man?

2. See Genesis 3:17 ("...cursed is the ground because of you."). The effect of sin not only applied to life, but also to non-life (the ground).

3. We see the evidence of decay everywhere in the universe... stars die, people die, moth and rust destroy, genetic information is most often lost when there is a mutation, etc...

I think you are misunderstanding what we would expect to see in the fossil record. Bear in mind that a mutation, when it occurs, occurs in a single individual. If that mutation is a dud, and will be quickly eliminated in the struggle for existance, why would you expect to ever see it in the fossil record, since only one of millions of creatures ever get fossilized? We would expect to see the successful mutations, the ones that made it into the whole species because it was so good for the species. And that means we see it seemingly suddenly appear in lots of individuals in the fossil record.

I probably am misunderstanding, the definition of what evolution is, what it is not, added terms of micro and macro evolution, speciation, Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism is always changing so it seems to be an ever-moving truth that just cannot be nailed down. I agree mutations will occur in a single individual and if it remains a dud will be quickly eliminated. I would expect to see this in the fossil record even though only one in millions of creatures ever get fossilized because the assertion of evolution is that mutation does not sparsely happen. In fact, it cannot happen sparsely, it must happen often. It happens often today (we could ask the cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients, right?) Evolution says that bad mutations are happening all the time and once in a great while they are beneficial and are kept. Mutations have to happen billions or maybe even trillions of times across many millions of creatures from a given species for the beneficial mutation to occur. So, if this is true, saying mutations rarely happen only makes the situation evolution finds itself in an even more dire position. What was, in my mind a 0% chance of happening now becomes a 0% x 10^9 change - like super-ultra zero!

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I argue that a designer wouldn't hold to such hierarchic patterns as evolution would require . . . it wouldn't make sense. The designer never, ever made a marine mammal with a tail that goes up and down. Why not? He could have easily done so. However, evolution CANNOT make a marine mammal with a tail going up and down. Evolution has to remake those hind feet into the tail, which are already set left and right.

But a designer who designed a physical system that would NATURALLY without GUIDANCE evolve marine mammals - would be pleased to observe the tail structure and call it good.

I'm saying there's no reason God would not have made creatures for the oceans with tails that move side to side AND tails that move up and down. Here I am drawn to Colossians 1:17, "And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." This seems to run perpendicular to the idea of a natural, unguided process. God is very deliberate, very involved, knows the number of hairs on our head... all of this seems to run against the idea of a distant, indirect God that just built a fantastic machine and just pushed a button to trigger it all. As we're told, "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." I believe God was directly involved in creation.

If I might ask, what is your view on the lineage given from Adam to Christ. This alone is still way too short to support what secular science suggests is the time span of modern man (something like 200,000 to 2,000,000 years?). Are we to believe that literally 10's or even 100's of thousands of generations are missing from the list as well? When corroborated against other father-to-son relationships, these genealogies show no evidence of skipping generations.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hi Paul, hope you had a good weekend! The idea that animals, as you put it, "perhaps" have not eternal soul is a little bit speculative - though I've heard of this idea before from other OEC's so you are not alone by any means in this view. I believe the YEC view is also somewhat speculative in that we believe animals would not have been experiencing literally billions of years of death prior to the arrival of man yet God said creation was 'very good', by His standard of 'very good.' I am drawn to Isaiah 65:25 where it is said of heaven:

"The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,” says the Lord."

This tells us that there are animals in heaven, and while it does not address whether they have a soul, it does suggest that animals have a place in God's eternal kingdom and they are special to Him (as there will be nothing that is not special to God, in heaven). So, I find it difficult to say we should change our theology on the basis of something never said in the Bible (the Bible never says animals died before sin), and there are several clues both inside and outside of scripture that suggests the effects of sin spread beyond man:

What is perfectly plain here is you are willing to completely disregard the evidence left behind by the fossils and geology and radiometric dating and accept only the bible as evidence. But to me that is not possible. The evidence God left us in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes counts as a form of His Word.

1. See Romans 8:18-22 ("...For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now"). The 'whole creation' is pretty all inclusive. How would it be that there is childbirth pains for all of creation if the original sin only had consequences to man?

The world should be vastly different by now but sinful man is not a very good gardener. In like manner, a baby is considered good and perfect but if it stays a baby for years something is drastically wrong, it is no longer good and perfect.

3. We see the evidence of decay everywhere in the universe... stars die, people die, moth and rust destroy, genetic information is most often lost when there is a mutation, etc...

There is an exception and that is in the case of a sustained energy flow . . . in that case we see the direct formation of dissipative structures, which, if the flow is sustained long enough, can become arbitrarily elaborated. That's you and me via evolution, the energy flow is steady sunlight over millions of years.

I probably am misunderstanding, the definition of what evolution is, what it is not, added terms of micro and macro evolution, speciation, Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism is always changing so it seems to be an ever-moving truth that just cannot be nailed down.

You won't be able to slay the dragon of evolution by mere uttering of correct words in a carefully composed sentence. Work on actually understanding the concepts.

I agree mutations will occur in a single individual and if it remains a dud will be quickly eliminated. I would expect to see this in the fossil record even though only one in millions of creatures ever get fossilized because the assertion of evolution is that mutation does not sparsely happen.

What? happening in a single individual isn't "sparse" to you? Bear in mind we don't see DNA in a fossil record, we see mostly bones and the shapes they make. How would you expect to see a cancer in such a fossil?

Evolution says that bad mutations are happening all the time and once in a great while they are beneficial and are kept. Mutations have to happen billions or maybe even trillions of times across many millions of creatures from a given species for the beneficial mutation to occur. So, if this is true, saying mutations rarely happen only makes the situation evolution finds itself in an even more dire position. What was, in my mind a 0% chance of happening now becomes a 0% x 10^9 change - like super-ultra zero!

Oh, you calculate wrongly there. Say there are a million of a species, and its one in a million chance for a beneficial mutation to happen, its practically certain to happen, then, somewhere in the population, in a single generation. Then it can spread due to natural selection.

I'm saying there's no reason God would not have made creatures for the oceans with tails that move side to side AND tails that move up and down.

But ALL the whales with tails side to side? ALL the fish with tails up and down? Why not some of each in each category? Evolution has an answer, creationism has to say its an arbitary choice of the designer. Evolution makes predictions and the predictions come true.

Here I am drawn to Colossians 1:17, "And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." This seems to run perpendicular to the idea of a natural, unguided process. God is very deliberate, very involved, knows the number of hairs on our head... all of this seems to run against the idea of a distant, indirect God that just built a fantastic machine and just pushed a button to trigger it all. As we're told, "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." I believe God was directly involved in creation.

We already know your feelings on the subject. Those feelings are not an argument.

If I might ask, what is your view on the lineage given from Adam to Christ. This alone is still way too short to support what secular science suggests is the time span of modern man (something like 200,000 to 2,000,000 years?). Are we to believe that literally 10's or even 100's of thousands of generations are missing from the list as well? When corroborated against other father-to-son relationships, these genealogies show no evidence of skipping generations.

The geologies were for a very long time passed on in oral tradition before being reduced to writing and they are probably at a maximum or optimal size for such passing. They would have constantly been repaired to sound right in the oral passing stage.

 

[The Barbarian]

Do remember this, modern science is built on Christian ideas.

The first principles of science were by the Greek scientists. Pagans or agnostics. There was a flowering of Christian scientific study in the late Roman empire, followed by a great advance in science by Muslim scientists in the Middle Ages. It's why so much of mathematics, astronomy, and chemistry have Arabic nomenclature.

The idea that the universe is constant, that it is understandable, that it is reasonable.

Without that principle, called "uniformitarianism", we would not be able to trace common descent, and the age of the Earth would be a mystery.

If evolution is true none of the above would apply.

You've been misled about that. The discoveries that made evolution clear are based on that principle.

 

[Tolworth John]

The first principles of science were by the Greek scientists. Pagans or agnostics. There was a flowering of Christian scientific study in the late Roman empire, followed by a great advance in science by Muslim scientists in the Middle Ages. It's why so much of mathematics, astronomy, and chemistry have Arabic nomenclature.



Without that principle, called "uniformitarianism", we would not be able to trace common descent, and the age of the Earth would be a mystery.



You've been misled about that. The discoveries that made evolution clear are based on that principle.

Yes many ideas were discovered by pagan and islamic scholard, but none were developed because their world view did not allow it.

Yes without uniformitarisim evolution would be seen for the unscientific nonsence it is.
Can you present me with evidence of evolution and by that I mean evidence that creatur 'A' has changed into creatur 'B'.
Ido not dispute that there are changes within a species.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes many ideas were discovered by pagan and islamic scholard, but none were developed because their world view did not allow it.

No, that is wrong. There's a large number of useful discoveries that developed because Greek, Roman, Indian , Chinese and/or Arabic scientific work.

Yes without uniformitarisim evolution would be seen for the unscientific nonsence it is.

Perhaps you don't know what "uniformitarianism" means. It applies mostly to physics, not biology.

Can you present me with evidence of evolution and by that I mean evidence that creatur 'A' has changed into creatur 'B'.

It seems that you don't know what evolution means. Individuals don't evolve; populations do.

And as you likely know the huge number of transitional forms ( but only where there should be transitional forms if evolution is a fact) is compelling evidence for evolution.

As you probably know, evolution is directly observed. Even speciation is an observed fact.

 

[Tolworth John]

And as you likely know the huge number of transitional forms ( but only where there should be transitional forms if evolution is a fact) is compelling evidence for evolution.

As you probably know, evolution is directly observed.

Huge number of transitionary forms.
Well why haven't you quoted me sources on them.
Do you have information that changes what Dr Colin Patterson wrote."‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"

 

[The Barbarian]

Let's test your belief. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that don't have a transitional form.

Young Earth creationist Dr. Kurt Wise lists a large number of them in his paper, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms.

Wise mentions a lot of them, but says that the whale transitional series is a particularly difficult problem for creationism. He has a doctorate in paleontology.

And he's a young Earth creationist.

 

[NobleMouse]

Let's test your belief. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that don't have a transitional form.

Young Earth creationist Dr. Kurt Wise lists a large number of them in his paper, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms.

Wise mentions a lot of them, but says that the whale transitional series is a particularly difficult problem for creationism. He has a doctorate in paleontology.

And he's a young Earth creationist.

Worth noting are the following changes required in order for a land animal to optimally live in water, as would be asserted by evolution:

• Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.
• A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.
• Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.
• Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.
• Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.
• Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.
• Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).
• Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.
• Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.

Source: Refuting Evolution chapter 5: Whale evolution? - creation.com

So, all of these features need to develop rather quickly and many together at the same time, supposedly all from gene mutation coupled with natural selection, and the genetic mechanisms to interpret the new precisely modified DNA correctly with no bad mutations occurring and all mutations being kept and retained for future generations.

Not putting this out there just to be argumentative, but to show that there are reasons behind why evolution and other assertions made by secular science are questioned by some.

 

[The Barbarian]

Worth noting are the following changes required in order for a land animal to optimally live in water, as would be asserted by evolution:

• Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.

Otters, beavers, hippos, and other animals spending most of their time in water, lack that adaptation.

A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.

The earliest known whales, otters, and the like, lack these.

Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.

Many water-adapted mammals lack them.

Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.

An entirely land-adapted animal had those, but many water-adapted animals don't have them.

Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.

Seals, otters, and so on, lack these adaptations.

Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.

The structure is called a rete mirabile, and it is found in many mammals, including land mammals.

Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).

First whales lacked them. There are transitional forms with nostrils in between.

Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.

Otters and seals lack them.

Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.

Most whales lack them.

So, all of these features need to develop rather quickly

Evidence indicates they evolved gradually. No need to suddenly appear.

Mutation and natural selection assure that the bad mutations are not passed on, and that the favorable ones are retained.

Your source seems to have very little of substance.[/quote]

 

[NobleMouse]

Otters, beavers, hippos, and other animals spending most of their time in water, lack that adaptation.



The earliest known whales, otters, and the like, lack these.



Many water-adapted mammals lack them.



An entirely land-adapted animal had those, but many water-adapted animals don't have them.



Seals, otters, and so on, lack these adaptations.



The structure is called a rete mirabile, and it is found in many mammals, including land mammals.



First whales lacked them. There are transitional forms with nostrils in between.



Otters and seals lack them.



Most whales lack them.



Evidence indicates they evolved gradually. No need to suddenly appear.

Mutation and natural selection assure that the bad mutations are not passed on, and that the favorable ones are retained.

Your source seems to have very little of substance.

Whales and water adapted mammals would have originated from the same supposed mitochondrial molecule from which all life evolved. So while the whale is clearly unique from other water adapted mammals as you've pointed out, let's be careful we don't give credit to God for having made the creatures of the sea according to their kind, as is written and understood. Instead, the likely truth is random chance and built-in intelligence(?) When reviewing DNA more closely, it has the functionality to account for the rearrangement of information and the emphasis of certain features (why people from one continent may have more pronounced features that are less pronounced from others); however, cannot account for the addition of new information (such as a flipper or tail fin when a flipper or fin had never existed in that simple mitochondrial molecule). This is why, when we look at fossils of , for example, sharks that are supposedly 350 - 400 million years old it still looks like... a shark. And a bird with feathers from supposedly 150 million years ago looks like... a bird. All glory and honor to... chance?

The Bible clearly states God made life according to their kinds without brining them up through some evolutionary tree. Do you agree that the Bible makes the claim that God directly created life and that it functioned on the day it was created (birds flew in the air, fish swam in the oceans, trees according to their kinds, etc...)? Do you agree that the Bible makes the claim that God created man from the dust of the ground on day 6 (not from other life, but rather the dust of the ground)? Do you agree that the Bible makes the claim that Jesus is the only way to the Father and no man comes to the Father except by Him? I'm just kidding on the last one, I know you and I see eye to eye on that one because that doesn't challenge your world view from what science has taught you.

Peace, and Happy New Year as well brother!

 

[NobleMouse]

@The Barbarian
Also note the following article...skipping down to just the video interviews (as you know where creation.com will stand on the issue so no need to read the top section) with the scientists and the supposed transitional forms leading up to modern day whales:
Whale evolution fraud - creation.com

 

[The Barbarian]

Whales and water adapted mammals would have originated from the same supposed mitochondrial molecule from which all life evolved. So while the whale is clearly unique from other water adapted mammals as you've pointed out, let's be careful we don't give credit to God for having made the creatures of the sea according to their kind,

We do. You just disapprove of the way he did it. But I'm pointing out the errors in the article you posted.

as is written and understood. Instead, the likely truth is random chance and built-in intelligence(?)

The observed process is random mutation and natural selection.

When reviewing DNA more closely, it has the functionality to account for the rearrangement of information and the emphasis of certain features (why people from one continent may have more pronounced features that are less pronounced from others); however, cannot account for the addition of new information (such as a flipper or tail fin when a flipper or fin had never existed in that simple mitochondrial molecule).

No, that's wrong, too. For example, there are all sorts of transitional forms between legs and flippers. And that's a misunderstanding of what information is and how new information appears in a population. Would you like to learn how that works?

This is why, when we look at fossils of , for example, sharks that are supposedly 350 - 400 million years old it still looks like... a shark.

Just not much like modern sharks, which have evolved markedly from that time.

And a bird with feathers from supposedly 150 million years ago looks like... a bird.

Just more like a dinosaur than modern birds. Would you like to learn why?

All glory and honor to... chance?

To God, Who created a world in which random mutation and natural selection produce such wonders.

The Bible clearly states God made life according to their kinds

True.

without brining them up through some evolutionary tree.

That part isn't in the Bible; it's another creationist revision.

Do you agree that the Bible makes the claim that God directly created life and that it functioned on the day it was created (birds flew in the air, fish swam in the oceans, trees according to their kinds, etc...)?

That would be assuming that a figurative passage had been changed to a literal history. That's a modern revision, not supported by scripture. Likewise the revision about Adam.

Do you agree that the Bible makes the claim that Jesus is the only way to the Father and no man comes to the Father except by Him?

You're willing to accept that passage as it is because that doesn't challenge your world view from what creationism has taught you.

Peace, and Happy New Year as well brother!

And to you, too.

 

[The Barbarian]

@The Barbarian
Also note the following article...

Looks a little confused and wanders a bit. Can't make much of it. What do you think is the best argument therein?

 

[NobleMouse]

We do. You just disapprove of the way he did it. But I'm pointing out the errors in the article you posted.

I don't disapprove of the way God created life. DNA seems to be a higher level building block that God uses in creating life - we all agree on that. Where I disagree is what science purports that God did not at all create birds, creatures of the sea, or man, or the stars, the earth, etc... instead he just ignited a fuse that let off a big bang billions of years ago and has been just watching from afar ever since. Have you got documented mainstream scientific articles making reference to and giving credit, honor, or glory to God that refutes what I am saying here? If you do come up with something (other than that on Biologos' website as they are not mainstream), then it will be the rare exception and certainly not the rule.

The observed process is random mutation and natural selection.

Scientists have observed the evolution of life with completely new creatures with never-before seen features emerging? I think what has actually happened is that inferences have been made based upon what things look like, where they exist in a rock layer, etc... which by the way the full faunal succession lines up with text books less than 1% of the time - not much of a predictable succession.

No, that's wrong, too. For example, there are all sorts of transitional forms between legs and flippers. And that's a misunderstanding of what information is and how new information appears in a population. Would you like to learn how that works?

Numerous well-qualified scientists would disagree that mutations result in complex beneficial structures:
https://evolutionnews.org/2012/06/can_random_muta/

Just not much like modern sharks, which have evolved markedly from that time.

Looks like sharks to me and in that same window we supposedly have entire new species arriving that never existed at all before (like you and me).

Just more like a dinosaur than modern birds. Would you like to learn why?

So this is supported by subjective speculation (in other words, the scientists feel is 'looks' more like a dinosaur and therefore is a transitional form).

To God, Who created a world in which random mutation and natural selection produce such wonders.

God is not random, in fact He is purposeful and we often hear of 'His Plan' and 'His Purposes' - everything He does is intentional, backed by infinite wisdom and power. Can you back up the idea God is in the business of random happenstance with scriptural references?

That part isn't in the Bible; it's another creationist revision.

The Bible does not use the word 'evolution' or describe a process that sounds like what science describes today, is true. That said, omission of an idea doesn't make it true either just because there is an open window to trying inserting. Technically anything could have happened on the days (yoms) life was created, but the Bible does affirm that birds were flying on the day they were created, fish were swimming, etc... Do you view 'yom' as a 24-hr day or follow more of the idea that yom is the same as olam, qedem or any other Hebrew word that might be used to convey long periods of time?

That would be assuming that a figurative passage had been changed to a literal history. That's a modern revision, not supported by scripture. Likewise the revision about Adam.

Genesis is narrative - telling us of events, times, and places that actually happened and actually exist or existed, not figurative. Would Jesus have quoted Genesis by saying, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female..." to put the Pharisees in their place with non-authoritative figures of speech? Jesus clearly studied Genesis, knew Genesis, and quoted it when defending His position because it is authoritative. Would God have set the stage for the entire Bible by just giving us some poetic allegory? Genesis is the foundation for the rest of the Bible, establishing who God is, who we are, why we are the way we are, why Jesus had to die for our sins, etc... it would seem questionable of God's character that He would carelessly just throw around a mix of truths, half-truths, and flat out misleading information.

You're willing to accept that passage as it is because that doesn't challenge your world view from what creationism has taught you.

I accept all of the Bible as true and it is my world view. This view existed before ideas of evolution and billions of years ever arrived on the scene, before the term 'creationism' ever existed, so we cannot say it is some new-age idea that was invented in the minds of say, the folks at AiG.

I like to debate and discuss this topic in particular, so please don't take any of this personally - I like to challenge other's views on this and enjoy having mine challenged as well.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't disapprove of the way God created life.

You do. Unless you reject the "life ex nihilism" doctrine of YE creationism, you reject God's creation.

Where I disagree is what science purports that God did not at all create birds, creatures of the sea, or man, or the stars, the earth, etc...

Oh, the creationist straw man. That's not what science says.

Scientists have observed the evolution of life

Evolution isn't about the way life began.

with completely new creatures with never-before seen features emerging?

Evolution never makes something completely new. It's always a modification of something already there.

I think what has actually happened is that inferences have been made based upon what things look like, where they exist in a rock layer, etc...

And homologies, genetics, observed speciations, the large number of transitional forms, and so on. Even morecompelling, this evidence for descent never occurs where it's not predicted to be.

which by the way the full faunal succession lines up with text books less than 1% of the time - not much of a predictable succession.

Let's test your belief. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional. Let's see what you've got.

.Numerous well-qualified scientists would disagree that mutations result in complex beneficial structures

Since it's been observed to happen, that's too bad for them. But if you'd like to post these well-qualified biologists and their claims, we can talk about it. What do you have?

So this is supported by subjective speculation (in other words, the scientists feel is 'looks' more like a dinosaur and therefore is a transitional form).

If you think so, you missed a lot here. As you see, there are many independent sources of data confirming evolution.

God is not random, in fact He is purposeful and we often hear of 'His Plan' and 'His Purposes' - everything He does is intentional, backed by infinite wisdom and power.

Being omnipotent, God can use contingency as easily as He can use necessity to His purposes. You're selling God short if you doubt it.

"...time and chance happeneth to them all."

The Bible does not use the word 'evolution'

Doesn't use the word "proton", either. Do you have a point?

Do you view 'yom' as a 24-hr day

It can mean "forever", "always", "in that time", and so on. The Genesis narrative indicates categories of creation, as early Christian theologians wrote.

Genesis is narrative - telling us of events, times, and places that actually happened and actually exist or existed, not figurative.

Some of it is. Other passages are clearly figurative, the notion of mornings and evenings without a sun to have them, makes that very clear.

Would Jesus have quoted Genesis by saying, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female..." to put the Pharisees in their place with non-authoritative figures of speech?

First, if God uses figurative speech, it is still authoritative. Second, in Genesis 1:1, He tells us what was there in the beginning, and male and female were not there.

Jesus clearly studied Genesis, knew Genesis, and quoted it when defending His position because it is authoritative.

Yes, so if Jesus thought it was literal history, He would not have made that statement. If it was literal history, than either Genesis or Jesus would have to be wrong.

The modern revision touted by Young Earth creationism is rife with such self-contradictions.

I accept all of the Bible as true and it is my world view. This view existed before ideas of literal days in Genesis ever arrived on the scene, before the term evolution ever existed, so we cannot say it is some new-age idea that was invented in the minds of say, Charles Darwin, St. Augustine, or Spurgeon.

 

[NobleMouse]

Looks a little confused and wanders a bit. Can't make much of it. What do you think is the best argument therein?

Sorry, I had overlooked your response here so just now getting to this. The interview with Dr Phil Gingrich about Rodhocetus. Dr Phil Gingrich was the scientist to discover this fossil and upon being asked about the fluke/flipper/fins as is depicted in museums and illustrated in books actually existed and he indicated it did not and was only speculated that it did. Later in that same video he indicated that he now believes the fluke/flipper/fins very likely did not exist. This illustrates, for me, exactly what I was talking about where scientists make visual connections between fossils as a means of providing evidence of transitional forms, but upon finding out more of the context around the original discovery we see that there are aspects of the find that are shown today as having absolutely existed when in fact no such feature ever existed. I'm not at all saying that this was intentionally misleading, but would rather emphasize the aspect of speculation based upon presupposed ideas that all life is somehow connected to a common ancestor. As a YEC, I fully accept that there will be variability and adaptation within a given species, but that species will never become a new, never-before-seen species with new complex features/capabilities. Further, evolution cannot explain behavioral aspects of a species, cannot explain how you and I have an eternal soul.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sorry, I had overlooked your response here so just now getting to this. The interview with Dr Phil Gingrich about Rodhocetus. Dr Phil Gingrich was the scientist to discover this fossil and upon being asked about the fluke/flipper/fins as is depicted in museums and illustrated in books actually existed and he indicated it did not and was only speculated that it did. Later in that same video he indicated that he now believes the fluke/flipper/fins very likely did not exist.

Flukes were assumed, because it was a whale. We now realize that early whales did not have flukes. That came later. It's kind of like the first reconstructions of Pakicetus, as having flippers. The skull was that of a whale, but it was a land animal, only very slightly adapted to aquatic life. When more of the skeleton was discovered, the error was realized.

This illustrates, for me, exactly what I was talking about where scientists make visual connections between fossils as a means of providing evidence of transitional forms, but upon finding out more of the context around the original discovery we see that there are aspects of the find that are shown today as having absolutely existed when in fact no such feature ever existed.

In this case, the correction actually showed how the transition went from land animals to whales. It was far more informative when the skeleton was found, because it wasn't a standard whale.

I'm not at all saying that this was intentionally misleading, but would rather emphasize the aspect of speculation based upon presupposed ideas that all life is somehow connected to a common ancestor. As a YEC, I fully accept that there will be variability and adaptation within a given species, but that species will never become a new, never-before-seen species with new complex features/capabilities.

Both speciation and the evolution of new complex features have been directly observed. The evolution of a spiral valve in a species of Italian lizard that arrived on an island with a much different environment took a couple of decades.

Further, evolution cannot explain behavioral aspects of a species,

That's done routinely. For example, it explains why whales swim with an up-and-down motion, while fish swim with a side-to-side motion.

cannot explain how you and I have an eternal soul.

Science can't say anything about the supernatural. However, God says that He gives us each a soul directly.

 

[NobleMouse]

Flukes were assumed, because it was a whale. We now realize that early whales did not have flukes. That came later. It's kind of like the first reconstructions of Pakicetus, as having flippers. The skull was that of a whale, but it was a land animal, only very slightly adapted to aquatic life. When more of the skeleton was discovered, the error was realized.

The late E.J. Slijper would disagree that any transitional forms exist for whales:
"We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales."

Both speciation and the evolution of new complex features have been directly observed. The evolution of a spiral valve in a species of Italian lizard that arrived on an island with a much different environment took a couple of decades.

Sounds like adaptation, the lizard is still a lizard, right?

That's done routinely. For example, it explains why whales swim with an up-and-down motion, while fish swim with a side-to-side motion.

That's describing functional behavior, not thinking behavior, evolution cannot explain things like a personality or morality. I'm not saying science has to have all the answers for an idea to be correct, but in the absence of having all the answers we have two opposing views of origins and so we must consider the sources: One is from God, one is from man.

Science can't say anything about the supernatural. However, God says that He gives us each a soul directly.

God also tells us the lineage from Adam to Christ and there are records of when Christ existed relative to the present - this is too short of time to fit the evolution paradigm. Secular science suggests modern man has been around for some 200,000+/- years, which is also too long. Man doesn't even know what processes occurring over 10,000 years look like (as there are no records from more than 5,000ish years ago) let alone millions or billions of years. I find it interesting that if modern man has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, we somehow failed to ever think of how to develop written language until just the last 5,000 years (which actually fits reasonably well with the timeline given by the Bible). It would be speculative to argue in favor/against why this is, so just an observation.

 

[The Barbarian]

The late E.J. Slijper would disagree that any transitional forms exist for whales:

Doesn't matter. There are abundant transitional whales in the fossil record. His statement:

"We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales."

Was written before we had any of the transitional fossils:
E.J. Slijper, Dolphins and Whales (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1962)

When I was in college, there weren't transitionals for whales, turtles, frogs, ants, and a host of other things. But in the past 50 years, a lot of things have turned up.

I'm not at all saying that this was intentionally misleading, but would rather emphasize the aspect of speculation based upon presupposed ideas that all life is somehow connected to a common ancestor. As a YEC, I fully accept that there will be variability and adaptation within a given species, but that species will never become a new, never-before-seen species with new complex features/capabilities.

Barbarian observes:
Both speciation and the evolution of new complex features have been directly observed. The evolution of a spiral valve in a species of Italian lizard that arrived on an island with a much different environment took a couple of decades.

Sounds like adaptation,

Evolution, yes. Adaptation is evolution that makes a population more fit to the environment. Evolving a complex new organ is one way that can happen.

the lizard is still a lizard, right?

A population of lizards that evolved a complex new structure. Just what creationists said could not happen.

(Denial that evolution can explain behavior)

Barbarian observes:
That's done routinely. For example, it explains why whales swim with an up-and-down motion, while fish swim with a side-to-side motion.

That's describing functional behavior, not thinking behavior, evolution cannot explain things like a personality or morality.

Even Darwin did that. In Descent of Man, he pointed out the survival value of morality for social animals like humans.

I'm not saying science has to have all the answers for an idea to be correct, but in the absence of having all the answers we have two opposing views of origins and so we must consider the sources: One is from God, one is from man.

The one that's actually from God, is consistent with evolution. The one from man (creationism), is not.

God also tells us the lineage from Adam to Christ and there are records of when Christ existed relative to the present - this is too short of time to fit the evolution paradigm.

Since the Bible lists two separate and contradictory genealogies for Christ, it's pretty clear that they are not meant to be literally true.

Secular science suggests modern man has been around for some 200,000+/- years, which is also too long. Man doesn't even know what processes occurring over 10,000 years look like (as there are no records from more than 5,000ish years ago)

Of course we can. And geologists, for example, have made predictions based on those data, which turned out to be correct. So we know it's right.

I find it interesting that if modern man has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, we somehow failed to ever think of how to develop written language until just the last 5,000 years

Or learned to use metals, or to raise crops, or...