Is evolution a fact or theory?

[GenemZ]

Not really. The concept of the molecular clock is based on too many unprovable assumptions to render it useful for anything other than talking points for the evolutionist.
Dan

Looks like they created their own fake dossier designed to impose upon those who do not have the capacity to see through their unfair use of data .... their misapplied data. Maybe they justify its use under the notion of "survival of the fittest." (assuming themselves as more fit mentally). Just the same... their logic is too often a walking contradiction that is fixated on exploiting the use of denials and obfuscation as a means to distract and unbalance those who are accustomed to thinking along the lines of rational common sense. Its "high sounding absurdity." Quasi intellectualism.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

That "flat top" hypothesis given by his professor seemed like a guess that was simply wrong. No big deal.

I don't recall a flat-top hypothesis? I do recall him speaking of observed flat tops (and bottoms) of coal seams, like these:

http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/static/uploads/photos/coal-seams-on-upper-lignite-creek.jpg​

http://www.telfordmgs.co.uk/resources/Multiple coal seam sequence - Scotland.JPG​

But, we need to ask? If I am understanding what he is saying? If the flat top hypothesis were about a universal flood in Noah's day? Where did the doves get those olive branches when returning to the ark if the flood destroyed the earth's surface?

I believe it was one dove with an olive leaf on a sprig. This is the context:

"And the dove not having found rest for her feet, returned to him into the ark, because the water was on all the face of the earth, and he stretched out his hand and took her, and brought her to himself into the ark. And having waited yet seven other days, he again sent forth the dove from the ark. And the dove returned to him in the evening, and had a leaf of olive, a sprig in her mouth; and Noe knew that the water had ceased from off the earth. And having waited yet seven other days, he again sent forth the dove, and she did not return to him again any more." -- Gen 8:9-12 LXX​

The way I interpet that is, the first time the dove was sent out there was no dry ground for it to land on, so it returned to the ark. The second time it landed on the ground, picked up a sprig with an olive leaf, and returned to the Ark, which Noah interpreted to mean the water had abated and there was at least some dry land.

And, why do we only find extinct creatures in the fossil evidence? Noah's day had the animals like we now see.

Fossils of all major modern plant and animal groups are found with the dinosaur fossils (museums "hide" them in their basements), including flamingos, sandpipers, penguins, cormorants, parrots, owls, boa constrictors, box turtles, frogs, salamanders, opossum, and the duckbilled platypus, among others.

Dr. Wise pointed out that the fossil record reveals a sea to land fossil transition as the flood waters rose higher. For that reason, the first mixing would be between lowland and marine animals.

Regarding the extinct species (the species that did not survive the flood), it is possible they were corrupted, or hybrids. The Hebrew bible is sketchy on the subject; but the intertestamental texts, such as Enoch, provides more detail. A friend wrote an article on that subject at:

Why Does The Fossil Record Contain So Many Extinct Species? - Bible Research Tools​

That is some pretty wild stuff, but it provides a plausible explanation of why some rebellious angels were bound in chains until judgment day, and, of course, the reason so many "species" were "left behind".

I have an additional theory on the lack of human and higher-order mammal fossils. Assume they had "escaped" to higher ground -- escaped from the violent giants (the children of the angels/earth women), and from the violent hybrid animals created by the giants, such as the velociraptors. They would be the last to drown, and also the first to be washed off the earth as the ocean floors sank and the flood waters abated, which eroded away the top sediment layers and formed the world-wide continental shelf. Therefore, it is possible those humans and mammal fossils that still exist are buried in the continental shelf, or in the ocean depths.

And, if all the species of animals found over the entire planet had to enter the ark in pairs? Noah would have needed to build a large fleet of arks to accommodate them all. Its still not making sense....

No. There have been many studies that demonstrate there was plenty of room on the ark for all animal kinds, plus food.

And if it were a universal flood in Noah's day? How did salt water and fresh water creatures survive the inundation of mostly fresh water found with that flood? It rained salt water? .... But, that would only explain the survival of the ocean marine life.

There were obviously some hardy kinds from which all other fresh water species sprang. We know there are common species alive today that can live in both fresh and salt water (Striped Bass, Rainbow Trout/Steelhead, etc.) Even Largemouth Bass and Bluegill (Sunfish) can live in both fresh and brackish water.

Noah's flood was local. The height of water given above the peaks mentioned did not go above other higher peaks found around the world.

The mountains were not as high in those, when the earth was a single continent called "Pangaea". The Rockies, Andes, Alps, Himalayas and other ranges did not exist until catastrophic plate tectonics occurred during (and/or after) the flood. Some of these videos might help you better understand the creation model:

Age of the Earth - Bible Research Tools​

A video under "Is Genesis History" (2nd on the left) titled "130 Minutes to Explore the Causes of the Flood", by Kurt Wise, goes into some detail on the TERRA model -- the UCLA PhD dissertation of John Baumgardner which simulates the catastrophic plate tectonics which formed the modern continents and mountain ranges from Pangaea. Plan on watching it several times, and taking notes. It is astonishing, to say the least!

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Location of nostrils in whales shows transitional forms:

Pakicetus, a terrestrial whale, Rhodocetus, a mostly aquatic/marine whale, and a modern whale. As you see, Rhodocetus is transitional between very early and later whales.

That would be news to Phil Gingerich, who said in an interview by Dr. Carl Werner:

"I speculated that [the Rodhocetus] might have had a fluke … I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail ... Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can spread out like flippers on a whale. If you don't have flippers, I don't think you can have a fluked tale and really powered swimming. So I now doubt the Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail.”​

That segment begins at 14:18 in this video:

I really don't believe you have considered all the ramifications of transitioning a land mammal into a whale. Dr. David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute, who was a postdoctoral fellow in mathmatics and molecular biology at Columbia University, examines whale evolution this way (the segment begins at 11:07):

You may also be interested in the next segment, beginning at 14:46, where Dr. Berlinski discusses homology.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Given the massive evidence you've just seen, denial is really pointless.

You must be dreaming evidence, because you haven't presented any.

From Nature: Fossils indicate common ancestor for two primate groups. Find suggests Old World monkeys and apes diverged 25 million years ago.15 May 2013

It appears you and I have substantially different definitions of scientific evidence. As an applied scientist during my career, I could not afford to rely on my imagination. From the Nature article:

"A team led by Nancy Stevens, a palaeontologist at Ohio University in Athens, recovered a lone tooth and a jaw fragment with three teeth from a site in the Rukwa Rift Basin in southwestern Tanzania. Precise geological dating of nearby rocks indicates that the fossils are 25.2 million years old, several million years older than any other example from either primate group."​

Wow! 4 teeth and a jaw fragment!

"The discovery also reconciles the fossil record analyses of 'molecular clocks' — mutations in DNA that can be traced back to estimate how long ago two species diverged. Molecular clocks suggest that Old World monkeys and apes split from their common ancestor 25 million to 30 million years ago.

“It’s a confirmation that the molecular-clock studies are decent estimates for what’s going on in geological time,” says Michael Steiper, an anthropologist at Hunter College of the City University of New York."​

That is all a very big pile of baloney, including the millions of years.

"Many fossils from the late Oligocene are teeth, so it is common to use them for species identification. However, basing the identification of a new primate on a single tooth fossil has lead to the occasional case of mistaken identity in the fossil record."​

I cannot imagine why?

“Given what [the authors] have, they’ve given the best interpretation possible,” says Fleagle.​

Disgusting pretense of science.

Nothing but denial? No evidence?

Not yet.

You've been misled about that, too. Kimura predicted the molecular clock before it was tested and verified. Would you like to know how he knew about it before it was confirmed? Barbarian observes: We have evidence. And that's what matters

So-called "molecular clocks" are like whale evolution -- based purely on speculation. Try a more recent analysis by Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, PhD, Genetics, Clemson University:

"While paleontologists have assigned ancient dates to fossils since the late 1800s, the idea of a molecular clock in biology wasn’t conceived until the early 1960s. This idea came about by comparing proteins between different types of animals combined with the alleged ages of animal evolution taken from the fossil record. Scientists hoped this strategy would lead to a unified evolutionary tree of life with accurate ancient evolutionary time points for the branches. Much to the disappointment of the evolutionary clock community, five decades of molecular clock research data have provided only contradictions and discrepancies. David Reich, a human evolutionary geneticist at Harvard Medical School, recently stated, 'The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us….It means that the dates we get out of genetics are really quite embarrassingly bad and uncertain.'" [Jeffrey P. Tomkins, "Evolutionary Clock Futility." Institute for Creation Research, 2017] ​

Evolutionary Clock Futility​

Everyone here has seen the massive amounts of evidence shown to you.

I cannot see what is not there. Perhaps they also are speculating, like you?

Canned slogans aren't going to be very useful to you, I think.

I personally avoid canned slogans.

Most who follow Christ see that as figurative, as the ancient Christians did.

Name them: the ancient Christians

He [Dr. Wise] believes [there are scientific reasons for a young earth], although he never said what they were.

Watch his "Is Genesis History" Lectures and you will see and hear why he believes science supports a young earth.

What's more important is his admission that the evidence, strong as he says it is, means less to him than his personal interpretation of scripture, and even if all the evidence clearly pointed to evolution, he would still not accept it. He's an honest creationist.

It was tough for him for a while. But he is "giddy" now that he has learned through observations and experimentation that science truly does support a young earth. You really should watch his lectures.

My observation is that you didn't get it.

You see what you want to see.

He thinks so, but actual geologists, people who actually have spent a lifetime studying it, disagree with him.

I am fairly certain that Dr. Wise, who is an actual geologist, has also spent a lifetime studying geology.

My thinking is that if you don't understand a video well enough to summarize it, you probably have no idea if it's worth watching.

My thinking is, if you already know it all, why should you bother to watch his videos?

As you now realize, Australopithecines are transitional between primitive apes and modern humans.Would you like me to show you some more of those?

There are no transitional forms; but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you truly believe you evolved from an ape, I will accept that. However, I personally am a descendant of Adam and Eve, whom God created from scratch.

An ornithologist would strongly disagree with you. It has far more dinosaur characteristics than avian ones. It's close to the line of feathered dinosaurs that led to birds, but it's not actually a bird. It has feathers, and it could fly, but it has the following dinosaur characteristics:

Did I not inform you that one of the world's leading evolutionary ornithologists, Dr. Alan Feduccia, said,

"It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that." ​

I sorta thought I did.

All of these are also found in various dinosaurs. So there you are.

What about the flow-through breathing system? The earliest birds had such a system, while the dinos had a reptilian bellows-type system?

You never seem to have any real answers; only speculations.

Even if you get peeved, never let them know they got to you.

Why not? Did you read that somewhere?

He didn't say all. Just everything in the "eretz." Meaning "the land." The word was used to mean "a particular place", a nation, "my land", and so on. Never said "the entire globe." However, there was a flood of Biblical proportions in the Middle East at about the right time. It created the Black Sea. And there are remains of human settlements under that sea. When the Mediterranean broke through into that basin, it must have seemed like the end of the world to people living there, many of who probably did not escape.

So, God said to Noah,

"Hey, Noah, I want you and your sons to build this massive ship to save you and your family from a local flood".​

Noah responded,

"But, God, can't we simply travel up into the mountains of Anatolia until the flood has subsided?"​

God replied,

"Gee, I never thought of that? But it is too late. Once I make plans, I stick with them, no matter how silly."​

"Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms"

Where and when did he say that? It us customary to provide a source when you quote or paraphrase someone.

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.
Six Days, by Kurt Wise Kurt P Wise, geology (In Six Days) - creation.com

I was responding to this statement by you,

"But let's look a hominids, which Kurt Wise says are strong evidence for human evolution:"​

You didn't answer my question.

I already showed you several [transitional forms]. By definition, they are transitionals.

You have presented a few speculations, at best. But I think I am beginning to understand you. You believe that if there is any similiarity between three species, one is an intermediate transition of the other two. Is that about right?

Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. They evolved from a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. And your retreat from "there aren't any transitionals" to "I don't think you can show me a hundred hominid transitionals" makes it clear that no amount of evidence or reason would work for you.

Any real evidence will do. Thus far you have presented no evidence.

But these discussions aren't to sway you or others like you. They are to provide information to those still willing to consider the evidence and decide for themselves. And this exchange has been very useful to those people, no matter which way they decide to go. My thanks to you for that.

One of my missions in my old age is exposing the complete absence of scientific evidence for evolution.

Between chimps and humans, something about 92% and 98%, depending on how you measure it.

To map the chimp genome, researchers used DNA from the blood of a male common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) named Clint . . .

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

I suspected you were peddling old research. That was the number before the Human Genome project determined Junk DNA wasn't Junk. Now the correlation is about 70%. Probably less. This is a paper by Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, PhD, Genetics, Clemson University, with the new numbers:

https://assets.answersingenesis.org...sions/arj/v6/chimpanzee-human-chromosomes.pdf​

(Barbarian notes that Australopithecines are transitional between arboreal apes and humans in have digits that are not as curved as those of other apes, but more curved than those of humans)Just one of many ways I showed you that Australopithecines were transitional between arboreal apes and humans.

Barbarian observes: Australopithecines, being mostly bipedal, are transitional in hips, femurs, and feet between arboreal apes and humans. They retain some primitive ape characteristics, but also some human ones. Their pelvises are nicely intermediate, while their feet are more human-like than ape-like. This "mosaic" evolution indicates that it does not proceed smoothly, but by stepwise changes.

It would take some serious monkeying with the DNA to transition an ape into a human, and vice versa. And that ain't never happened, and it ain't never gonna happen.

Nope. No designer would every design a lower back like ours. It's very suboptimal, to the point that most Americans will experience back problems.

And would be an easy fix. Instead of moving the nerves between a narrow opening between the L5S1 and L4L5 discs, routing in in the open would prevent most back pain. It's not a big deal for quadrupeds, but it's a huge deal for bipeds.

Perhaps man's back was designed for picking an occasional fruit from the garden, and not for tilling the ground. This is life before the fall:

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." -- Gen 1:29 KJV​

And this is after:

"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." -- Gen 3:17-19 KJV​

There are no suboptimal structures, except the brains of evolutionists.

In the sense we are apes. It's an extinct hominin, not just an ape, and as you learned, it's transitional between other apes and humans in may ways.

If you think you descended from apes, who am I to judge?

Dan

 

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps man's back was designed for picking an occasional fruit from the garden, and not for tilling the ground. This is life before the fall:

Sorry, that excuse won't work. People who have only moderate activity, exercise regularly, and keep otherwise healthy, also have low back problems from the unfortunate consequences of being upright in a structure evolved for quadrupeds.

No point in denial, but since that's just about all you are doing now, I suppose you'll continue.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian demonstrates transitional series for nostrils/blowholes in whales:
https://pandasthumb.org/uploads/2008/nasal_drift.gif

That would be news to Phil Gingerich,

Nope. In fact, he pointed out that series. You've been taken yet again. Here's how:

who said in an interview by Dr. Carl Werner:

"I speculated that [the Rodhocetus] might have had a fluke … I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail ... Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can spread out like flippers on a whale. If you don't have flippers, I don't think you can have a fluked tale and really powered swimming. So I now doubt the Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail.”

They pulled a switch on you. Rodhocetus is a very primitive whale, but the nostrils are already back from the snout, transitional from the first whales to modern whales. That has nothing to do with the limbs of Rodhocetus, which are less able to move around on land than the limbs of earlier whales, but are not yet flippers. Hence, they are also transitional:

Pakicetus:

Ambulocetus:

Rodhocetus:

Dorudon:

So there is another transitional series. As you learned earlier, evolution doesn't go in a smooth, continuous change of all characteristics, rather producing a mosaic of some advanced traits and some primitive ones in transitional forms.

You inadvertently brought up yet another transitional series in whales.

 

[The Barbarian]

Let's clear up some more confusion:

Did I not inform you that one of the world's leading evolutionary ornithologists, Dr. Alan Feduccia, said,

"It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."
I sorta thought I did.

You'd be unhappy with Feduccia, who thinks that birds and dinosaurs are siblings, instead of dinosaurs being parents. He's pretty much lost the debate because of more recent finds that take out more of his objections, like the one you pose below:

One mainstay of Feduccia's argument:

What about the flow-through breathing system? The earliest birds had such a system, while the dinos had a reptilian bellows-type system?

The remains of a 30-foot-long predatory dinosaur discovered along the banks of Argentina's Rio Colorado is helping to unravel how birds evolved their unusual breathing system.
...
Although the researchers were excited to find such a complete skeleton, it took on even more importance as they began to understand that its bones preserved hallmark features of a bird-like respiratory system.

Arriving at that understanding took some time. Laboratory technicians spent years cleaning and CT-scanning the bones, which were embedded in hard rock, finally to reveal the evidence of air sacs within Aerosteon's body cavity. Paleontologists previously had found only tantalizing evidence in the backbone, outside the cavity with the lungs.

Wilson worked with Sereno and the rest of the team to scientifically describe and interpret the find. The vertebrae, clavicles and hip bones bear small openings that lead into large, hollow spaces that would have been lined with a thin layer of soft tissue and filled with air in life. These chambers result from a process called pneumatization, in which outpocketings of the lungs (air sacs) invade the bones. Air-filled bones are the hallmark of the bellows system of breathing in birds and also are found in sauropods, the long-necked, long-tailed, plant-eating dinosaurs that Wilson studies.
Dinosaur had bird-like breathing system

You never seem to have any real answers; only speculations.

And now you know better. You got it backwards, perhaps because you don't get how a bellows works.

Most tetrapods have an in-and-out breathing system like ours. Birds and at least some bird-like dinosaurs have a one-way bellows system. Much more efficient.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Nope. Homology means the same structure serves as fins in certain fish, legs in reptiles, wings in birds, diggers in moles, and manipulative organs in humans. Same genes, same structures, evolved to different purposes. If you designed a human knee from scratch you wouldn't make it so vulnerable to injury. But it's homlogous with quadrupeds, which have not such problems.

That is Richard Dawkins style of illogic. You have no clue how a differently designed knee would impact the overall performance of the organism.

Homology is just another meaningless evolutionism gadget. Genetic differences are far too vast to even consider the notion that members of one family evolved into another family. There are billions of genetic differences between similar-looking organisms, such as chimps, apes and man.

They don't say the same things, even in a simplified way.

Not in the same words. One is an evolutionism apologist who much carefully watch his words or be shunned in the faculty lounge; and the other believes evolutionism is sheer nonsense and doesn't mind saying so.

This is Statham in the paragraph prior to quoting Wagner:

"Sir Gavin de Beer was one of the foremost embryologists of the 20th century. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society, and went on to become the Director of the Natural History Museum in London. In 1971 he wrote a paper which he titled, Homology: an Unsolved Problem. Now Gavin de Beer was an evolutionist, he believed in Darwin’s theory of evolution; but he couldn’t reconcile this with the facts of embryology. In his paper he gave examples of homologous structures that developed in very different ways, from different parts of the egg or embryo and under the control of different genes. It was a mystery to him because it flew in the face what he expected to find as an evolutionist; hence the title of his paper calling homology ‘an unsolved problem’. He never solved this problem—and nor has anyone else." [Dominic Statham, "Homology made simple." Creation Ministries International, 2014] ​

This is the paragraph where he quoted Wagner:

"Gunter Wagner is Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Yale University. Speaking of this same problem, the problem of reconciling the facts of embryology with the theory of evolution, he wrote, “The disturbingly many and deep problems associated with any attempt to identify the biological basis of homology have been presented repeatedly.”6(Emphasis added.)" [Statham] ​

This is Wagner.

"The disturbingly many and deep problems associated with any attempt to identify the biological basis of homology have been presented repeatedly (Spemann, 1915; Baltzer, 1950; Sander, 1983; Roth, 1984, 1988; Wagner, 1986), and there is no need to repeat all examples again. However, it is important to note the common theme in compaints of inadequacy of developmental biology and genetics to account for homology. . . Many examples point to variation of developmental processes for undoubtedly homologous characters . . . there are many examples in which the cells that make up homologous characters have different embrylogical origins." [Gunter P. Wagner, "The Origin of Morphological Characters and the Biological Basis of Homology." Evolution, 1989, p.1163] ​

This is Statham in the very next paragraphL

"Now they tell the youngsters in the schools and the students in the universities that evolution is the great unifying principle in biology. They tell us that Darwin explained the diversity of life. The celebrated evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky assured us that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” But this is simply not true. The reality is that attempts to reconcile the facts of biology with Darwin’s theory give rise to many and deep problems." [Statham]​

Both Gunter and Statham are writing of the same problems with the evolutionism icon of morphology.

As you just learned, human backs and knees are suboptimal.

Nonsense. How could a mere man determine how to "improve" a part of an delicately-balanced, unimaginably-complex organism? That is the kind or arrogance one would expect from Richard Dawkins (which he is always eager to provide).

Someone's taken advantage of your trust in them. When I was an undergraduate in the 60s, there were articles in the literature on the functions of non-coding DNA. A half-century ago. You're five decades out of date.

There is nothing amiss in my statement. I wasn't implying everyone was in the dark. But there is no doubt that in the past it has been a very well-kept secret. Those in the hard sciences are rarely aware of what is going on in biological research, and, from all appearances, few in the biological sciences were even aware of the possible functionality of Junk DNA.

Those of us unexposed to genetic research have no alternative but to rely on the loudest experts, like Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, to keep us informed of changes in evolutionary research. Fat chance:

"it appears that the amount of DNA in organisms is more than is strictly necessary for building them: a large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If the 'purpose' of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true 'purpose' of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA." [Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene." Oxford University Press, 30th Anv Ed, 2006, Chap 3, pp.44-45] ​

"Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as"junk DNA" just betrays our current level of ignorance. And indeed, some small fraction of them may play important regulatory roles. But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation. The process of transposition often damages the jumping gene. There are AREs throughout the human and mouse genomes that were truncated when they landed, removing any possibility of their functioning. In many instances, one can identify a decapitated and utterly defunct ARE in parallel positions in the human and the mouse Genome. Unless one is willing to take the position that God has placed these decapitated AREs in these precise positions to confuse and mislead us, the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable." [Francis S. Collins, "The Language of God." 2006, Gen 1:12, pp.136-37] ​

That was 2006. If they didn't know about it as late as 2006, how many others have been deceived? I certainly was. Collins and Dawkins wrote those statements while I was still an evolutionist.

Jonathan Well writes about this Die-Hard Icon in his book, "The Myth of Junk DNA".

You'd be more effective if you could avoid personal attacks, and deal in evidence. You're doing your case no small amount of harm this way.

Quit talking like a know-it-all child, and I will quit bringing it up. Alternately, continue patronizing and perhaps I will get used to it.

As you learned, both DNA analyses and comparisons of cytochrome C give us the same phylogenies, and those are nicely aligned with the family tree prepared by Linnaeus.

Nonsense.

I'm going to be in the field for a bit over the next week. I don't know what the internet access will be like, so we'll pick this up after I get back.

See you then.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Sorry, that excuse won't work. People who have only moderate activity, exercise regularly, and keep otherwise healthy, also have low back problems from the unfortunate consequences of being upright in a structure evolved for quadrupeds.

No point in denial, but since that's just about all you are doing now, I suppose you'll continue.

Can I assume you reject the concept of original sin?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Barbarian demonstrates transitional series for nostrils/blowholes in whales:
https://pandasthumb.org/uploads/2008/nasal_drift.gif

That is old "news". Gingerich was interviewed by Werner at a later date.

Nope. In fact, he pointed out that series. You've been taken yet again. Here's how:

He is still pushing that nonsense? Do you have a link?

They pulled a switch on you. Rodhocetus is a very primitive whale, but the nostrils are already back from the snout, transitional from the first whales to modern whales. That has nothing to do with the limbs of Rodhocetus, which are less able to move around on land than the limbs of earlier whales, but are not yet flippers. Hence, they are also transitional.

Gingerich initially promoted Rodhocetus as a fluke-tailed swimmer. A repositioned nostril (if that is what it is) is hardly the stuff whale evolution is made of.

As a rationalist, it appears to be an extinct species to me: probably a form of alligator of crocodile.

Pakicetus

Debunked.

Ambulocetus:

Debunked.

Rodhocetus:

Debunked.

Dorudon:

Evolved from what? It is simply an extinct form of a whale.

Like I said, Evolutionism Icons Die Hard!

So there is another transitional series. As you learned earlier, evolution doesn't go in a smooth, continuous change of all characteristics, rather producing a mosaic of some advanced traits and some primitive ones in transitional forms. You inadvertently brought up yet another transitional series in whales.

Unless there is a plethora of transional forms, whale evolution is far too fantastic for any rational person to believe.

There is another way to look at it, which I heard or read somewhere:

"Thousands of paleontologists since Darwin have found no whale transitions."​

"Two paleontologists have discovered Rodhocetus,Ambulocetus, and Pakicetus."​

Which paleontologists have the most vivid imaginations?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Let's clear up some more confusion:

You'd be unhappy with Feduccia, who thinks that birds and dinosaurs are siblings, instead of dinosaurs being parents. He's pretty much lost the debate because of more recent finds that take out more of his objections, like the one you pose below:

Feduccia stated the Archaeopteryx is a perching bird. I have seen no research that proves him wrong.

The remains of a 30-foot-long predatory dinosaur discovered along the banks of Argentina's Rio Colorado is helping to unravel how birds evolved their unusual breathing system.
...
Although the researchers were excited to find such a complete skeleton, it took on even more importance as they began to understand that its bones preserved hallmark features of a bird-like respiratory system.

Hallmark?

Arriving at that understanding took some time.

I'll bet!

Laboratory technicians spent years cleaning and CT-scanning the bones, which were embedded in hard rock, finally to reveal the evidence of air sacs within Aerosteon's body cavity. Paleontologists previously had found only tantalizing evidence in the backbone, outside the cavity with the lungs.

Wilson worked with Sereno and the rest of the team to scientifically describe and interpret the find. The vertebrae, clavicles and hip bones bear small openings that lead into large, hollow spaces that would have been lined with a thin layer of soft tissue and filled with air in life. These chambers result from a process called pneumatization, in which outpocketings of the lungs (air sacs) invade the bones. Air-filled bones are the hallmark of the bellows system of breathing in birds and also are found in sauropods, the long-necked, long-tailed, plant-eating dinosaurs that Wilson studies.

The "air sacs" were not fossilized, so this entire premise is based on the positioning of a few holes? Did I interpret that correctly?

And now you know better. You got it backwards, perhaps because you don't get how a bellows works. Most tetrapods have an in-and-out breathing system like ours. Birds and at least some bird-like dinosaurs have a one-way bellows system. Much more efficient.

We shall see.

Dan

 

[GenemZ]

Regarding the extinct species (the species that did not survive the flood), it is possible they were corrupted, or hybrids. The Hebrew bible is sketchy on the subject; but the intertestamental texts, such as Enoch, provides more detail. A friend wrote an article on that subject at:

Why Does The Fossil Record Contain So Many Extinct Species? - Bible Research Tools​

That is some pretty wild stuff, but it provides a plausible explanation of why some rebellious angels were bound in chains until judgment day, and, of course, the reason so many "species" were "left behind".

hmmmmm... Its would seem odd that there would be no mention of the T Rex in the book of Genesis in Noah's day. I do not think Noah and his sons could have built that ark without us also hearing stories of the horrible creatures they needed to hide from and endure.

On another note. Genesis 6 reveals a MAJOR aspect of a social conflict we see today.

Angels were all created male. There is no female form of the word angelos found in the Bible. Why?

Just like Adam was created alone and male. Adam being created first was without a female counterpart. So it had been done with angels also. One difference. Adam was solo. The male angels were created en mass. So, the angels would have less of a loneliness problem than Adam had, and could be without having females for a longer amount of time. And, like Adam, God had them tend to their garden of the prehistoric creations.

It is evident that God created angels with capacity to procreate, because we see the Nephilim of Genesis 6.

What happened with the angels? Well.. if Adam was at a point of being still without his woman? And one day decided to eat from the forbidden tree? And, they refused to admit any wrongdoing? God would have been forced to not give him his blessings of the woman.... and instead set up a new system involving justice and judgment to live under.

As for the angels? Lucifer and his "morning stars" decided to partake of their equivalent of "forbidden fruit".... And then refused to repent. (which they have not to this day) The result? God never gave the angels their female counterparts... God was then forced to place the angels under a system of justice and teaching so the angels that did not depart from Him could begin to understand why God judged Satan and his angels so severely. (needs to be explained later)

In the mean time...

We found in Genesis 6 angels with male apparatus for procreation. Up until the time ofr seeing the fantastic sex between Adam and his woman they lived in latent masculinity.

Along comes man and woman. All the angels watch with great interest. The woman is absolutely beautiful and most likely many angels felt for the first time what we call a broken heart, and a newly recognized reason for their loneliness no longer went undefined.

Certain of the angels resented what they were placed in. They began to resent God for denying them. Satan noticing this began to tempt them. (much to be explained here as well)

Well... we know the results of Genesis 6 where angels and women procreated.

Only some angels rebelled and took the women to themselves. Mutants began. God had to destroy that mutant race with Noah's flood unless the promised seed of the woman be nullified and Jesus could not be born of true human DNA as prophesied in Genesis 3:15.

Where did that leave the fallen angels? They could not touch! After all, demons could not even enter swine without the Lord's permission. What they did was to observe and to study women and admire them deeply... But, because they were outside of God's grace to find power to overcome.. they had unbridled lust with no place to go with it. In psychotic frustration they began creating pseudo male female relationships of their own. First drag queens? Fallen angels.

Homosexuality began with fallen angels. That is why we see in Romans 1 when God hands men who reject Him over to worship the created things (rather than the One who created them) to the desire of their hearts. In doing so, God hands these men over to the fallen angels influence to whom in their souls they have a deep affinity. Suddenly... they become transformed into the ones they worship. For we become like the one we worship. That is why we find these men suddenly turning from their previous heterosexual activity and turning into uncontrollable homosexuals burning in lust. For, God handed them over to the power and influence of those they preferred over God.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

hmmmmm... Its would seem odd that there would be no mention of the T Rex in the book of Genesis in Noah's day. I do not think Noah and his sons could have built that ark without us also hearing stories of the horrible creatures they needed to hide from and endure.

Who would we hear the stories from?

On another note. Genesis 6 reveals a MAJOR aspect of a social conflict we see today. Angels were all created male. There is no female form of the word angelos found in the Bible. Why?

Because God wanted that way?

It is evident that God created angels with capacity to procreate, because we see the Nephilim of Genesis 6.

That is the way I understand it. The intertestamental literature states that the demons of Jesus's day were disembodied spirits of those giants.

What happened with the angels? Well.. if Adam was at a point of being still without his woman? And one day decided to eat from the forbidden tree? And, they refused to admit any wrongdoing? God would have been forced to not give him his blessings of the woman.... and instead set up a new system involving justice and judgment to live under.

As for the angels? Lucifer and his "morning stars" decided to partake of their equivalent of "forbidden fruit".... And then refused to repent. (which they have not to this day) The result? God never gave the angels their female counterparts... God was then forced to place the angels under a system of justice and teaching so the angels that did not depart from Him could begin to understand why God judged Satan and his angels so severely. (needs to be explained later)

The angels that corrupted the human seed (and possibly the animal seed) are the ones Peter and Jude said were bound in chains of darkness until the days of judgment. Satan was and is evil, but he and his angels were not bound in darkness, but rather were allowed to rule the world, until the resurrection of Christ. That seems odd. But I have a theory:

When God makes a covenant it is like a marriage contract, in which the wife is released from her husband upon his death. Paul explained that when Jesus died, Israel was released from the first covenant (Rom 7:1-4), so they could remarry the Lord under the new covenant -- those who chose to do so.

I believe the angels received a similar covenant with the Lord, that is, God told them that with the exception of certain things, like mingling with earthly women, they would have free will and be part of his council (Ps 82 ESV).

In the days of Babel, God divided the nations according to the number of angels (aka, "sons of God"):

"When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God." -- Deu 32:8 LXX​

"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God." -- Deu 32:8 ESV 1970​

[Note: the ESV text in Deut 32:8 is based on the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew, rather than the much later Masoretic Hebrew which reads "children of Israel" (which makes no sense), rather than the "sons of God"]

So, when you read of God warning Israel about chasing after other gods, God was referring to the angels -- the sons of god -- whom he had appointed to be rulers over the nations.


Satan, who was apparently the leader of the angels, gained power over the nations at the time of Babel; and he maintained that power until the days of Christ:

"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine." -- Luk 4:5-7 KJV ​

But when Christ died, the covenant with the angels ceased, and the Lord resumed power:

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" -- Mat 28:18-19 KJV​

About that time Satan and his angels were kicked out of heaven:

"And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." -- Rev 12:5-10 KJV​

Anyway, that is my theory.

In the mean time...

We found in Genesis 6 angels with male apparatus for procreation. Up until the time ofr seeing the fantastic sex between Adam and his woman they lived in latent masculinity.

Along comes man and woman. All the angels watch with great interest. The woman is absolutely beautiful and most likely many angels felt for the first time what we call a broken heart, and a newly recognized reason for their loneliness no longer went undefined.

Certain of the angels resented what they were placed in. They began to resent God for denying them. Satan noticing this began to tempt them. (much to be explained here as well)

Well... we know the results of Genesis 6 where angels and women procreated.

Only some angels rebelled and took the women to themselves. Mutants began. God had to destroy that mutant race with Noah's flood unless the promised seed of the woman be nullified and Jesus could not be born of true human DNA as prophesied in Genesis 3:15.

That is the way I see it, with one addition. The supernatural angels and offspring also corrupted the gene pool of the animal kingdom via hybridization, creating the bizarre dinosaurs, and other strange land and marine creatures. I believe only the uncorrupted animal kinds -- the ones God created -- were allowed on the Ark, which is why there are so many extinct species in the fossil record.

Where did that leave the fallen angels? They could not touch! After all, demons could not even enter swine without the Lord's permission. What they did was to observe and to study women and admire them deeply... But, because they were outside of God's grace to find power to overcome.. they had unbridled lust with no place to go with it. In psychotic frustration they began creating pseudo male female relationships of their own. First drag queens? Fallen angels.

Homosexuality began with fallen angels. That is why we see in Romans 1 when God hands men who reject Him over to worship the created things (rather than the One who created them) to the desire of their hearts. In doing so, God hands these men over to the fallen angels influence to whom in their souls they have a deep affinity. Suddenly... they become transformed into the ones they worship. For we become like the one we worship. That is why we find these men suddenly turning from their previous heterosexual activity and turning into uncontrollable homosexuals burning in lust. For, God handed them over to the power and influence of those they preferred over God.

I will have to think about that one.

Dan

 

[GenemZ]

Why Does The Fossil Record Contain So Many Extinct Species? - Bible Research Tools​

That is some pretty wild stuff, but it provides a plausible explanation of why some rebellious angels were bound in chains until judgment day, and, of course, the reason so many "species" were "left behind".

Why should God be inconsistent? Cross breeding only takes place within the same species. The bodies of angels and men are considered the same "species" though angels are 'spirits' indwelling their bodies, where as men are 'souls' indwelling their bodies. Physically very close. The Bible tells us we may not know it when visited by angels... And, in Genesis 18, the men mention later we discover were actually angels.

You can not get a farm boy having offspring with chickens. Egg laying creatures producing offspring with creatures that were designed for wombs? Nope... never could survive.

Dinosaurs, etc.... were a previous creation. Ending up taking on a look and actions state to reflect upon the mentality of both fallen and elect angels. Just like when Adam fell the animal creation entered into a distortion of what they originally were. No meat eaters until after Adam fell. No angels tampered with those genes when Adam fell.

God is consistent.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Why should God be inconsistent? Cross breeding only takes place within the same species.

God is consistent, but his creatures are not. Angels are divine beings with divine powers, and they don't play by our rules on cross-breeding. And remember, those angels were chained and condemned to darkness until judgment day; so whatever they did was horrific!

In any case, both man and the animal kingdom were corrupted; and I am pretty sure God didn't corrupt it. Read the following carefully. The first one, Genesis, provides only an abstract:

“And the Lord God saw the earth, and it was corrupted; because all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. And the Lord God said to Noe, A period of all men is come before me; because the earth has been filled with iniquity by [men], and, behold, I destroy them and the earth.” — Gen 6:12-13 LXX​

"And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children. . . . And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones." -- Enoc 6:1-2, 7:1-6​

“And lawlessness increased on the earth and all flesh corrupted its way, alike men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything that walks on the earth all of them corrupted their ways and their orders . . . And God looked upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt, and all flesh had corrupted its orders, and all that were upon the earth had wrought all manner of evil before His eyes.” – Jubilees 5:2-3​

"For owing to these three things came the flood upon the earth, namely, owing to the fornication wherein the Watchers against the law of their ordinances went a whoring after the daughters of men, and took themselves wives of all which they chose: and they made the beginning of uncleanness. And they begat sons the Naphidim, and they were all unlike, and they devoured one another: and the Giants slew the Naphil, and the Naphil slew the Eljo, and the Eljo mankind, and one man another. And every one sold himself to work iniquity and to shed much blood, and the earth was filled with iniquity. And after this they sinned against the beasts and birds, and all that moves and walks on the earth: and much blood was shed on the earth, and every imagination and desire of men imagined vanity and evil continually." -- Jubl 7:21-24​

“and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other?, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.” — Jasher 4:18​

All point to the corruption of the animal kingdom.

The bodies of angels and men are considered the same "species" though angels are 'spirits' indwelling their bodies, where as men are 'souls' indwelling their bodies. Physically very close. The Bible tells us we may not know it when visited by angels... And, in Genesis 18, the men mention later we discover were actually angels.

I never really thought about it.

You can not get a farm boy having offspring with chickens. Egg laying creatures producing offspring with creatures that were designed for wombs? Nope... never could survive.

That sounds logical.

Dinosaurs, etc.... were a previous creation. Ending up taking on a look and actions state to reflect upon the mentality of both fallen and elect angels. Just like when Adam fell the animal creation entered into a distortion of what they originally were. No meat eaters until after Adam fell. No angels tampered with those genes when Adam fell. God is consistent.

I cannot follow you. Please rephrase.

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

Fossils of all major modern plant and animal groups are found with the dinosaur fossils (museums "hide" them in their basements), including flamingos, sandpipers, penguins, cormorants, parrots, owls, boa constrictors, box turtles, frogs, salamanders, opossum, and the duckbilled platypus, among others.
and from the violent hybrid animals created by the giants, such as the velociraptors.

​

​

Ive worked at both museums, and with fossils stocked at various universities, and no...there isnt some secret stash of flamingo and platypus fossils fossils hahaha, this is just nuts^.

You seem to be another conspiracy theorist, suggesting that scientists and those of us who work at museums are all colluding and hiding flamingo fossils from the world. hahaha

I actually noticed this just recently, that the ark museum in kentucky has dinosaurs on the ark. And yet, no dinosaurs live today. Ken ham has it all wrong. As a matter of fact, no dinosaurs live today, unless you count birds, and no living day species have ever been identified in the fossil record. Of the millions of extinct animals found in the fossil record, not a single one lives today. And of the millions of animals that live today, not a single one is found in the fossil record. The closest thing anyone has found are things like extinct genera of ceolacanths, but even these are morphologically unique and independent from their currently living counter part.

 

[GenemZ]

​

Ive worked at both museums, and with fossils stocked at various universities, and no...there isnt some secret stash of flamingo and platypus fossils fossils hahaha, this is just nuts^.

You seem to be another conspiracy theorist, suggesting that scientists and those of us who work at museums are all colluding and hiding flamingo fossils from the world. hahaha

I actually noticed this just recently, that the ark museum in kentucky has dinosaurs on the ark. And yet, no dinosaurs live today. Ken ham has it all wrong. As a matter of fact, no dinosaurs live today, unless you count birds, and no living day species have ever been identified in the fossil record. Of the millions of extinct animals found in the fossil record, not a single one lives today. And of the millions of animals that live today, not a single one is found in the fossil record. The closest thing anyone has found are things like extinct genera of ceolacanths, but even these are morphologically unique and independent from their currently living counter part.

Look at Young Earth Creationists. See their folly?

Now, reverse it..

Look at Evolutionists, how they must deny Intelligent Design in what exists.

See the folly? They were both meant for each other.

 

[Job 33:6]

Look at Young Earth Creationists. See their folly?

Now, reverse it..

Look at Evolutionists, how they must deny Intelligent Design in what exists.

See the folly? They were both meant for each other.

Perhaps like peanut butter and jelly. Yin and yang.

komatiitebif hides his flamingo fossils*

 

[GenemZ]

God is consistent, but his creatures are not. Angels are divine beings with divine powers, and they don't play by our rules on cross-breeding.

That is not very well thought out. Name one creature that controls he can breed with. God determines how things are to go. Not angels not playing by the rules. Horses can breed with zebras. But, horses can not breed with dogs.

And remember, those angels were chained and condemned to darkness until judgment day; so whatever they did was horrific!

Of course they did something wrong. Horrific? When Adam ate of the forbidden fruit? Was that very wrong? Or, horrific? Stop pushing buttons, please. Relax. You do not have to work up the audience. If its true it should stand on its own * for those who have ears to hear.*

In any case, both man and the animal kingdom were corrupted; and I am pretty sure God didn't corrupt it. Read the following carefully. The first one, Genesis, provides only an abstract:

“And the Lord God saw the earth, and it was corrupted; because all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. And the Lord God said to Noe, A period of all men is come before me; because the earth has been filled with iniquity by [men], and, behold, I destroy them and the earth.” — Gen 6:12-13 LXX​

NOTE! God was out to destroy man! The animals were necessary collateral damage. ​

"And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children. . . . And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones." -- Enoc 6:1-2, 7:1-6

Men were not a flesh eater back then. These giants began eating the flesh of the animals. It was unheard of at that time. Man back then ate from the fruit and vegetables. It would have been a sin to eat the flesh of another creature at that time. Only after Noah and his family left the Ark did God ordain for the first time the eating of animal flesh!

Gen 9:1-3

Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful
and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of
you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in
the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on
all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything
that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave
you the green plants, I now give you everything.
​

It was foreign thinking to man and a great evil to eat the flesh of animals when the Nephilim were doing so. .

How did the Nephilim know they could eat animal flesh, since no man did?


Easy! Angels lived in prehistoric times and saw dinosaurs that were flesh eaters and knew animal flesh was also for food.

Then...


Noah leaving the Ark was given a new command. "You now can eat the flesh of animals."

 

[GenemZ]

Perhaps like peanut butter and jelly. Yin and yang.

But, what they both produce is inedible. It would never go with the Bread of Life.

Both sides are wrong. They can see the obvious errors of the other, but never can see their own. That is why no one will go to the other side. Its because they have raised up their own preferred concept above sticking with what the Word says. Even if its not yet understood how it can be? If the Bible tells us it did not happen a certain way, it can not be overridden with some "plausible speculation."

Instead of a food fight. They have a "speculation fight." It gets messy after a while.