GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[Nathan Poe]

I know a lot more about Science then you know about the Bible and how to study the Bible.

Well, that's just plain wrong, Johnny -- and arrogant to boot.

 

[roach]

I know a lot more about Science then you know about the Bible and how to study the Bible.

I know you are, but what am I .... (?!)

 

[TheReasoner]

I know a lot more about Science then you know about the Bible and how to study the Bible.

So why do you make so many rudimentary mistakes Jazer?

 

[mzungu]

I know a lot more about Science then you know about the Bible and how to study the Bible.

You do realise that pride is a sin? You do realise that arrogance is a sin? I don't know about you but unless you have God himself telling you how to read the bible then you are just like the rest of us (mainly Christians) who interpret the bible as they read it. Christians who do not read the bible literally (the Majority) gain comfort and inspiration as they see the Bible as a spiritual book.

You on the other hand show little of the sensitivity and the humanity Jesus preached; You see your faith as a political party and are quick to judge and condemn even your fellow Christians.

The Good thing is that the overwhelming majority of the world's Christians are not like you!

If you take offence then remember "Judge not lest you be judged in return". Guess who said that!

 

[createdtoworship]

So you are saying God doesn't exist then? Evolution is going on all the time. We (bio engineers) even use it to make stuff. So if evolution and God cannot possibly coexist it follows that since we KNOW evolution to be real God must be false.

No, grady. I do believe God exists. And I am not about to ignore what His creation says in favor of an interpretation held by a small minority of Christians across the pond (in the US). Even if that minority is large in the US (about 40%) it constitutes a small minority of the world's Christian population. The way they read the bible there may not be room for evolution. But that is their problem, not Christianity's problem. Most of Christianity embraces evolution, which is a good thing. It's real, after all. And if reality conflicts with a biblical interpretation the interpretation is most likely wrong.

that is micro evolution that exists not macro evolution. It's evolution that exists across a greater divide than the species level that does not exist.

 

[Nathan Poe]

that is micro evolution that exists not macro evolution. It's evolution that exists across a greater divide than the species level that does not exist.

According to whom?

 

[TheReasoner]

that is micro evolution that exists not macro evolution. It's evolution that exists across a greater divide than the species level that does not exist.

What Nathan said.

You cannot say that microevolution exists but not macroevolution. The one naturally follows the others, as walking consists of steps. Or the ocean of drops of water.

Thing is, we DO observe speciation. There are many examples of it, Grady.

 

[createdtoworship]

What Nathan said.

You cannot say that microevolution exists but not macroevolution. The one naturally follows the others, as walking consists of steps. Or the ocean of drops of water.

Thing is, we DO observe speciation. There are many examples of it, Grady.

transition forms would litter the hills to the point a child would find dozens during play time. However I would settle for one transition form that crossed the genus barrier. (one transition that was two different genus' as we know it). However there are none that are not either man made or that are not sterile. Hybrids of this sort do not exist.

good brother showed shed some light on the theory of evolution:

"life sprang from an electrocuted mud puddle, that fishy fish sprouted legs and crawled up on shore, that those same fishy fish split off in two different directions- mammalian and reptilian, that those reptilian frayed their scales until they became feathers, shrunk down in size, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around and became tweety birds. Or that the mammalian family ditched the four legged transportation for two, grew a tail, climbed a tree, swung around from the branches until their tails fell off and they fell out the trees, built a fire, shed the fur, grew a beard, and now believe we came from monkeys.



or maybe this one



That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys."

 

[TheReasoner]

transition forms would litter the hills to the point a child would find dozens during play time. However I would settle for one transition form that crossed the genus barrier. (one transition that was two different genus' as we know it). However there are none that are not either man made or that are not sterile. Hybrids of this sort do not exist.

good brother showed shed some light on the theory of evolution:

"life sprang from an electrocuted mud puddle, that fishy fish sprouted legs and crawled up on shore, that those same fishy fish split off in two different directions- mammalian and reptilian, that those reptilian frayed their scales until they became feathers, shrunk down in size, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around and became tweety birds. Or that the mammalian family ditched the four legged transportation for two, grew a tail, climbed a tree, swung around from the branches until their tails fell off and they fell out the trees, built a fire, shed the fur, grew a beard, and now believe we came from monkeys.



or maybe this one



That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys."

Ah. Thanks.

I see you really do not understand this subject very well Grady. May I suggest taking a few university level biology classes? If you want to play with the big boys, bring big toys.

Or: Don't bring a tricycle to the formula 1 boyo.

We're done here.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ah. Thanks.

I see you really do not understand this subject very well Grady. May I suggest taking a few university level biology classes? If you want to play with the big boys, bring big toys.

Or: Don't bring a tricycle to the formula 1 boyo.

We're done here.

do you have any hybrids that cross the genus barrier?

I dint' think you did. Thats okay, it just proves the point.

 

[mzungu]

do you have any hybrids that cross the genus barrier?

I dint' think you did. Thats okay, it just proves the point.

Do you know what you are talking about?

Here; Enjoy the read: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYwwtrTH10A&playnext=1&list=PL76083B1EF400E6BA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZxRHbX1dm4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY&feature=related

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you know what you are talking about?

Here; Enjoy the read: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Introducing Tiktaalik, Your Inner Fish - Part 1 - YouTube

( Tiktaalik & Other) Great Transitions in Evolution (mirror) - YouTube

Creationists and Transitional Fossils - YouTube

tiktaalik is a fish according to answers in genesis...

Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. In a review article on Tiktaalik (appearing in the same issue of the scientific journal Nature that reported the discovery of Tiktaalik), fish evolution experts, Ahlberg and Clack concede that “in some respects Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic.” 5

In other respects, however, Ahlberg and Clack argue that Tiktaalik is more tetrapod-like than Panderichthys because “the bony gill cover has disappeared, and the skull has a longer snout.” The authors weakly suggest that the significance of all this is that “a longer snout suggests a shift from sucking towards snapping up prey, whereas the loss of gill cover bones probably correlates with reduced water flow through the gill chamber. The ribs also seem larger in Tiktaalik, which may mean it was better able to support its body out of water.”

Without the author’s evolutionary bias, of course, there is no reason to assume that Tiktaalik was anything other than exclusively aquatic. And how do we know that Tiktaalik lost its gill cover as opposed to never having one? The longer snout and lack of bony gill covers (found in many other exclusively-aquatic living fish) are interpreted as indicating a reduced flow of water through the gills, which, in turn, is declared to be suggestive of partial air-breathing—but this is quite a stretch. Finally, what does any of this have to do with fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods?

Are the pectoral fins of Tiktaalik really legs?

Before we get into Tiktaalik’s “legs,” it might be instructive to consider an old trick question. If we call our arms “legs,” then how many legs would we have? The answer, of course, is two legs—just because we call our arms “legs” doesn’t make them legs. The same might be said of the bony fins of Crossopterygian fish—we may call them “legs” but that doesn’t necessarily make them legs.

Shubin et al. make much of the claim that Tiktaalik’s bony fins show a reduction in dermal bone and an increase in endochondral bone.6 This is important to them because the limb bones of tetrapods are entirely endochondral. They further claim that the cleithrum (a dermal bone to which the pectoral fin is attached in fish) is detached from the skull, resembling the position of the scapula (shoulder blade) of a tetrapod. They also claim that the endochondral bones of the fin are more similar to those of a tetrapod in terms of structure and range of motion. However, none of this, if true, proves that Tiktaalik’s fins supported its weight out of water, or that it was capable of a true walking motion. (It certainly doesn’t prove that these fish evolved into tetrapods.)

The limbs of tetrapods

The limbs of tetrapods share similar characteristic features. These unique features meet the special demands of walking on land. In the case of the forelimbs there is one bone nearest the body (proximal) called the humerus that articulates (flexibly joins) with two bones, the radius and ulna, further away from the body (distal). These in turn articulate with multiple wrist bones, which finally articulate with typically five digits. The hind limbs similarly consist of one proximal bone, the femur, which articulates with two distal bones, the tibia and fibula, which in turn articulate with ankle bones; and finally with typically five digits. In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The humerus of the forelimb articulates with the pectoral girdle which includes the scapula (shoulder blade) and the clavicle (collar bone). The only bony attachment of the pectoral girdle to the body is the clavicle.

The femur of the hind limb articulates with the pelvic girdle, which consists of fused bones collectively called the pelvis (hip bone). It is this hind limb—with its robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column—that differs radically from that of any fish. (The tetrapod arrangement is important for bearing the weight of the animal on land.)

All tetrapod limb bones and their attachment girdles are endochondral bones. In the case of all fish, including Tiktaalik, the cleithrum and fin rays are dermal bones.

It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment girdles) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we realize that the buoyant density of water is about a thousand times greater than that of air. A fish has no need to support much of its weight in water where it is essentially weightless.

The fins of fish (including Tiktaalik)

Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle. (This is particularly obvious in animals such as kangaroos and theropod dinosaurs.) Not only are the pelvic fins of all fish small, but they’re not even attached to the axial skeleton (vertebral column) and thus can’t bear weight on land.

While the endochondral bones in the pectoral fins of Crossopterygians have some similarity to bones in the fore limbs of tetrapods, there are significant differences. For example, there is nothing even remotely comparable to the digits in any fish. The bony rays of fish fins are dermal bones that are not related in any way to digits in their structure, function or mode of development. Clearly, fin rays are relatively fragile and unsuitable for actual walking and weight bearing.

Even the smaller endochondral bones in the distal fin of Tiktaalik are not related to digits. Ahlberg and Clack point out that “although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental rearranging.”

 

[mzungu]

tiktaalik is a fish according to answers in genesis...

Answers in Genesis???????? These people are not qualified to delve in any scientific matters.
You want scientific answers then go to a site that has answers given by scientists: An Index to Creationist Claims

Answers in Genesis is a joke!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TME30pPBw58

 

[TheReasoner]

Answers in Genesis???????? These people are not qualified to delve in any scientific matters.
You want scientific answers then go to a site that has answers given by scientists: An Index to Creationist Claims

Answers in Genesis is a joke!
BBC report on Creationist Museum - YouTube

A very bad, very dangerous joke. They are undermining science, and thereby undermining the progress of mankind. In effect hampering development which could essentially - if we really boil this down to the very essence of the matter - hinder or delay life-saving products and discoveries. I would - and am - call(ing) creationism an enemy of Christianity and mankind both.
For clarification: I wouldn't and am most emphatically not saying creationists are evil, non-christian or stupid. I am saying they have been duped, fooled, bamboozled into supporting a viewpoint which is.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

tiktaalik is a fish according to answers in genesis...

Lawl.

Do you know how they found Tiktaalik? They used the theory of evolution to work out when such a transitional form should have lived, found the corresponding geological stratum, and excavated. Lo and behold, they found a species that bore all the hallmarks we'd expect from a species that was midway through leaving the water.

And it is not a fish, no matter what the cranks at AiG say. Their statement of faith belies their reliability as a credible, scientific source:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

 

[AV1611VET]

I would - and am - call(ing) creationism an enemy of Christianity and mankind both.
For clarification: I wouldn't and am most emphatically not saying creationists are evil, non-christian or stupid. I am saying they have been duped, fooled, bamboozled into supporting a viewpoint which is.

Fair enough -- two can play that game.

I would - and am - call(ing) evolutionism an enemy of God and the Bible both.
For clarification: I wouldn't and am most emphatically not saying evolutionists are evil, non-darwinian or stupid. I am saying they have been duped, fooled, bamboozled into supporting a philosophy which is.

 

[TheReasoner]

Fair enough -- two can play that game.

I would - and am - call(ing) evolutionism an enemy of God and the Bible both.
For clarification: I wouldn't and am most emphatically not saying evolutionists are evil, non-darwinian or stupid. I am saying they have been duped, made atheists, bamboozled into supporting a philosophy which is.

(My emphasis)

So you're calling me - and in fact most Christians - atheists? Perhaps you want to re-phrase that AV? You know many people would take offense at that. Myself most certainly included.

And I strongly disagree. You have no support for your creationist position AV. No physical evidence for it. No real biblical support either, even the bible does not agree with you. Just look at the two conflicting creation stories present in Genesis.
The church does not bless it. Maybe your congregation does, but the church on a global scale does not. You know as much. Most Christians are not creationists. The church is not. The bible contradicts itself when read as you propose AND you have no support for your position in God's creation either.
Besides: Evolution is no philosophy!

All you have is your own opinion. Nothing backs it. Nothing supports it. All it does is drive people to thinking Christianity is a huge lie and deceitful to the core. If anything contributes to people rejecting their faith it is that you creationists make it inaccessible to them. You say reality conflicts with christianity. You may find an atheist who says evolution helped him realize christianity was a false religion, but if so this is only because you people have convinced him that creationism=christianity, and that it is contradicted by evolution. It isn't, it's only problematic in your minds.

So tell me AV, that which has no support neither in the study of God's creation nor in the vast majority of both theologians and believers around the world as well as hugely problematic when studying the bible is most likely to be what? True or false?

 

[AV1611VET]

(My emphasis)

So you're calling me - and in fact most Christians - atheists?

Nope -- it's expressly forbidden:

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Perhaps you want to re-phrase that AV?

Fair enough, I'll change it.

And I strongly disagree.

I know.

You have no support for your creationist position AV.

I disagree.

No physical evidence for it.

I agree.

No real biblical support either, even the bible does not agree with you.

I disagree.

Just look at the two conflicting creation stories present in Genesis.

Been there/done that.

The church does not bless it.

What church? you do realize you're talking to an independent, don't you?

Maybe your congregation does, but the church on a global scale does not.

Maybe instead of just using 2011 stats, you might want to take all of history into consideration as well on this one.

You know as much.

I know enough to disagree with you.

Most Christians are not creationists.

Again, one subset of the total population from the onset of mankind does not warrant a good point here.

The church is not.

Again, whose church? yours?

The bible contradicts itself when read as you propose AND you have no support for your position in God's creation either.

No, it doesn't AND the Bible says it, that settles it.

Besides: Evolution is no philosophy!

Tell Paul that.

All you have is your own opinion.

Whose opinion(s) would you like me to start using? yours?

Not a chance -- then you guys would whine I don't 'think for myself'.

And for the record, if it was just 'my own opinion', why are you 'call(ing) creationism an enemy of mankind and Christianity both'?

Nothing backs it.

I disagree.

Nothing supports it.

I disagree.

All it does is drive people to thinking Christianity is a huge lie and deceitful to the core.

I've seen that charge leveled for other beliefs we hold as well.

 

[mzungu]

Gentlemen. The problem with a literal interpretation of the bible is that one finds conflicting messages. Whereas if one reads the Bible as a spiritual guide then no conflicts arise. Genesis 1 and 2 are an example of why one should not take the Bible literally. The Bible is not a science textbook.
Creationists tend to read and interpret the bible literally and this causes rifts between the various Christians because by reading the bible literally then one EXCLUDES the spiritual nature of the message. I am sure that Jesus did not mean it literally when he said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven". If we read this literally then we conclude the following:

1) Rich men do not go to heaven.

2) A camel can pass through the eye of a needle if a rich man goes to heaven.

Now if we read the same as a spiritual guide then the following message comes across:

Money and riches do not buy you a place in heaven nor do they make you a better person for it is the soul that matters and not material wealth.

BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!

 

[AV1611VET]

Gentlemen. The problem with a literal interpretation of the bible is that one finds conflicting messages. Whereas if one reads the Bible as a spiritual guide then no conflicts arise. Genesis 1 and 2 are an example of why one should not take the Bible literally. The Bible is not a science textbook.
Creationists tend to read and interpret the bible literally and this causes rifts between the various Christians because by reading the bible literally then one EXCLUDES the spiritual nature of the message. I am sure that Jesus did not mean it literally when he said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven". If we read this literally then we conclude the following:

1) Rich men do not go to heaven.

2) A camel can pass through the eye of a needle if a rich man goes to heaven.

Now if we read the same as a spiritual guide then the following message comes across:

Money and riches do not buy you a place in heaven nor do they make you a better person for it is the soul that matters and not material wealth.

BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!

I won't spoil your point by disagreeing with your eye-of-the-needle example --