Formal debate proposal: accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy

[AV1611VET]

May I ask what fossils have to do with the Creation Week?

 

[Assyrian]

Given that most of them predate humans, quite a lot.

 

[gluadys]

Glaudys
So much here.
I explained that the fossils are just from events where they were all fossilized together. Your side is saying they show ages. So I'm saying these whale types were all living together. not transitions but mere varieties around some area.

OK, I am trying to get clear what you are saying here. It seems you agree these various fossils are transitional in form. So you are not looking for something in the fossil that is not there. You agree that we can arrange fossils like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus, and modern whales in a sequence of form that any observer would take to be transitional in terms of their morphology. Is that right?

But--you say--it is not just that the forms must show a transition. In order to be transitional, they must also show a chronological sequence. Descendants cannot precede ancestors, right?

And, according to you, these fossils are not found in a chronological sequence. They were "all fossilized together" "various whale types all living together" "mere varieties around some area."


So, basically, you deny all the work that geologists---many of them Christian--have put into determining the sequence in which rock strata were laid down.

It is not really transitional fossils you have a problem with. It is deep time.


The transitions have been shown. And they have been shown to correlate correctly over time. The chronological sequence is part of the understanding of what makes them transitional. No paleontologist would agree that the various whale/protowhale species were all fossilized at the same time. The species in the reptile to mammal transition cover over 300 million years of geological history with the sequence of form correlating to the time sequence. They were not all fossilized at the same time. They do show ages.

You simply deny that scientific evaluations of the geological history of the planet have any validity. And you have nothing but an ideological commitment to a dubious form of scriptural interpretation on which to base this denial.

 

[AV1611VET]

Given that most of them predate humans, quite a lot.

Given that the beasts of the earth were created on the same day that Adam was, I would assume these creatures were created with more age, then. If God created Adam as a 30-year-old, and a satyr as a 400-million-year old, then the satyr would certainly "predate" Adam, would it not?

 

[Assyrian]

Isn't a Creationist satire known as a Poe?

Unless you know how God embedded all this age, how do you know the animals didn't live and die, and get embedded in the rock for 150 million embedded years before God created man?

 

[AV1611VET]

Isn't a Creationist satire known as a Poe?

Only if I wink at you.

Unless you know how God embedded all this age, how do you know the animals didn't live and die, and get embedded in the rock for 150 million embedded years before God created man?

How did these animals die? Where did death come from? Are you suggesting that there was a pre-Adamic [or Edenic] race on the earth?

 

[Assyrian]

Only if I wink at you.

I though Poes are the ones without smilies.

How did these animals die? Where did death come from?

All part of God good creation, like when he feeds young lions and ravens their prey in the Creation account in Job 38 and Psalm 104.

Job 38:39 "Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
40 when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in their thicket?
41 Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food?

Psalm 104:21 The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.

The death that came with the fall only spread to mankind
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

Are you suggesting that there was a pre-Adamic [or Edenic] race on the earth?

Who do you think Cain married? His sister?

 

[AV1611VET]

I though Poes are the ones without smilies.

You're right --- my mistake!

All part of God good creation, like when he feeds young lions and ravens their prey in the Creation account in Job 38 and Psalm 104.

Quoting from Job and an Orphan Psalm, which were written during the dispensations of Human Government and Law respectively, to justify death before the dispensation of Innocence, are we? Now, now --- can't have that, can we? Might lead to error.

The death that came with the fall only spread to mankind

So Adam was immune from death prior to the Fall, but his taxonomic predecessor wasn't? Did a Homo erectus die after giving birth to a Homo sapien that was immune to death?

Who do you think Cain married? His sister?

Who do you think mtDNA Eve married? Her Homo erectus predecessors? I've already shown evolution to be anarchy and inappropriate behavior with animals in action --- not to mention blasphemy.

 

[shernren]

Given that the beasts of the earth were created on the same day that Adam was, I would assume these creatures were created with more age, then. If God created Adam as a 30-year-old, and a satyr as a 400-million-year old, then the satyr would certainly "predate" Adam, would it not?

Given that most of them predate humans, quite a lot.

Hey! Satyrs are kind-hearted man-goat hybrids. They wouldn't hurt a fly. Why on earth would a satyr predate Adam?

I mean, "predate" is what "predators" do, right?

[runs for cover]

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey! Satyrs are kind-hearted man-goat hybrids. They wouldn't hurt a fly. Why on earth would a satyr predate Adam?

I mean, "predate" is what "predators" do, right?

[runs for cover]

LOL --- don't hide behind a man-eating plant!

 

[Assyrian]

You're right --- my mistake!

Quoting from Job and an Orphan Psalm, which were written during the dispensations of Human Government and Law respectively, to justify death before the dispensation of Innocence, are we?

So you don't think Psalm 104 and Job 38 are the word of God, or that God can tell us about creation in them?

Now, now --- can't have that, can we?

What, other creation accounts in the bible that disagree with you interpretation of Genesis? Heaven forefend

Might lead to error.So Adam was immune from death prior to the Fall, but his taxonomic predecessor wasn't?

Which of them was in the garden with access to the tree of life?

Did a Homo erectus die after giving birth to a Homo sapien that was immune to death? Who do you think mtDNA Eve married? Her Homo erectus predecessors?

You don't think an African woman 200,000 years ago that scientists nicknamed Eve is the Eve in the bible?

Anyway, species don't suddenly change over night. If mitochondrial Eve was able to reproduce with other humans alive at the time then by very definition they were the same species. If she wasn't able to breed with them then she wouldn't have passed on her mitochondria.

I've already shown evolution to be anarchy and inappropriate behavior with animals in action --- not to mention blasphemy.

Sorry I missed it.

 

[shernren]

You're right --- my mistake! Quoting from Job and an Orphan Psalm, which were written during the dispensations of Human Government and Law respectively, to justify death before the dispensation of Innocence, are we?

So you don't think Psalm 104 and Job 38 are the word of God, or that God can tell us about creation in them?

Careful Assyrian, looks like you're dealing with a full-blown seven ages dispensationalist here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Careful Assyrian, looks like you're dealing with a full-blown seven ages dispensationalist here.

You betcha ---

 

[mark kennedy]

You don't think an African woman 200,000 years ago that scientists nicknamed Eve is the Eve in the bible?

Anyone but me wonder what Paul would have thought about that question when he wrote Romans.

Anyway, species don't suddenly change over night. If mitochondrial Eve was able to reproduce with other humans alive at the time then by very definition they were the same species. If she wasn't able to breed with them then she wouldn't have passed on her mitochondria..

Species up to the level of genus can change quickly, just not at the level they would have to in order for the myth of universal common descent to be verifiable.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyone but me wonder what Paul would have thought about that question when he wrote Romans.

Notice how he changed the wording of my very specific questions so as to filter out the inappropriate behavior with animals aspect of evolution? I say mtDNA Eve --- he says "African woman"; I say Homo erectus (vis-a-vis Homo sapien) --- he says "human".

 

[shernren]

Species up to the level of genus can change quickly, just not at the level they would have to in order for the myth of universal common descent to be verifiable.

Out of curiosity (and since this probably wouldn't come up in our debate) I've seen you assert before that rapid species change can happen but you've never put a number on that rate. Do you have one?

Also, complete human genome sequences have been made for an African, an Asian, and a cancer patient (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081105/ts_afp/healthbiotechgenome, http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/05/236212&from=rss). This article from ScienceMag (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/322/5903/838?) has the full lowdown but requires subscription access. A revealing paragraph:

Bentley and colleagues sequenced the genome of a Yoruba man from Nigeria whose DNA has already been extensively studied, enabling them to check the accuracy of their technology. In the third Nature paper, Jiang Wang of the Beijing Genomics Institute in Shenzhen, China, and colleagues sequenced the genome of a Han Chinese male. The Yoruba analysis uncovered almost 4 million SNPs, including 1 million novel ones. The Chinese genome had about 3 million, including 417,000 novel SNPs. As anticipated, the African genome had greater variation per kilobase than either the Chinese or sequenced Caucasian genomes, indicative of its ancestral status.

Wonder if your model can churn out that many SNPs in six thousand years.

 

[Assyrian]

Anyone but me wonder what Paul would have thought about that question when he wrote Romans.

Probably not.

But to answer your question, Paul might have asked what mitochondria are.

Species up to the level of genus can change quickly, just not at the level they would have to in order for the myth of universal common descent to be verifiable.

Sure it does. I have seen you discuss this with sfs often enough. But isn't wandering into the genetic evidence for evolution a digression here?

This issue AV brought up is inappropriate behavior with animals, do species change so quickly that the next generation counts as a completely different species, and sex with even a cousin would count as inappropriate behavior with animals?

 

[shernren]

Probably not.

But to answer your question, Paul might have asked what mitochondria are.

Etymology.com has mitos "thread" + khondrion "little granule".

Lint?

Sure it does. I have seen you discuss this with sfs often enough. But isn't wandering into the genetic evidence for evolution a digression here?

This issue AV brought up is inappropriate behavior with animals, do species change so quickly that the next generation counts as a completely different species, and sex with even a cousin would count as inappropriate behavior with animals?

I mean, the thread's done its job, it can wander wherever it wants now for all I care.

A thought I had this morning while thinking about the recent posts on transitional fossils. Doesn't the creationist hypothesis of postdiluvian rapid speciation bring into question their explanation for transitional fossils (and the fossil record in general)?

After all, to a creationist, transitional species were separated neither temporally nor spatially (if found in the same region). They just happened to be buried in different layers. Well then: if natural selection is so strong that speciation occurred rapidly after the Flood, shouldn't that same natural selection preclude so many "transitional species" sharing the same niche(s) before the Flood? We know for a fact that there must have been a lot more selective pressure before the Flood (see the relatively high density of many fossil beds, and the paucity of fossilization even under catastrophic circumstances) than after (two of everything, what competition?).

It's a half-baked argument but I wonder what the others think.

 

[Assyrian]

No its a good one. It is one of those disconnects you find in Creationism where one ad hoc explanation contradicts another. Could do with bit more time in the oven and a drizzle of dark chocolate sauce, but otherwise its looking good.

 

[shernren]

No its a good one. It is one of those disconnects you find in Creationism where one ad hoc explanation contradicts another. Could do with bit more time in the oven and a drizzle of dark chocolate sauce, but otherwise its looking good.

Or, hmm, evidence. Yoohoo mallon! Wanna go taste-test my new argument on some real fossil grounds? ^^

If I were a creationist trying to debunk this argument, I would try to look for real-world ecosystems where there is high spatial overlapping between life-forms that, if fossilized in separate layers, would appear to represent a transitional sequence. Any ideas where I can find those?