Is evolution a fact or theory?

[NobleMouse]

If what you see in scripture, does not coincide with what physically exists around you, then you should not be so quick to...disregard what physically exists around you, for what you perceive through ideas that you have conjured up in your imagination.

The earth is something that exists as it is. You and I can both go outside and touch it, smell it, taste it, feel it etc. It doesnt change. And you can get anyone from around the world to say...test the hardness of a quartzite. It never changes. No matter what religious background, no matter what your level of education is, no matter what degree you have, the earth is as it is.

Yes, we can see it's present condition, but as to how it arrived at this condition is not so easily discerned. The "imagination" argument will always tend to fall flat since there are words in the text that explicitly say what is allegedly being "imagined".

Perception of scripture is just the opposite. Never in history have people all united over...interpretations of scripture. As they are based in...perception and interpretation that only exists in the mind. It is only in your imagination that a global flood happened, there is nothing in physical reality that makes it so.

People have historically manipulated scripture to serve their agenda rather than take it for what it says and what it would have meant in the context of the culture and those to whom it was addressed at the time it is written... then how it applies to their lives today. Those who interpret days as billions of years or saying the entire narrative of Noah's flood didn't happen at all are either [1] manipulating the meaning to fit with an ulterior agenda, or [2] have chosen to be willingly ignorant. Those who have made it their life's work and are experts in Hebrew and the study of that culture, recognize 'yom' as days and that the events in Genesis are historical narrative... whether talking about Adam & Eve, Cain and Abel, the lineage to Noah and his family, the flood, etc...

If you say biblical creationists are trying to push an agenda, what's the agenda?? That the Bible means what it says? Nobody benefits by the earth being somewhere less than 10,000 years old... it's kind of like, so what? If the Bible implied the earth was 100,000 years old, I'd go with that... if it said a million, or a billion, or a 100 billion, I'd go with that too. It's not an agenda - it's just saying the Bible (God's word) is correct... and God's word indicates a creation over 6 days and provides the lineage from Christ to Adam... and we know within close approximation as to when Christ lived relative to the present.

You've also used the "elusiveness-of-scripture" argument before, but I will continue to disagree. These words are from God; God, written down by man... it's source is intelligent and pure, communicating a message of our past, why we need a savior, God's love and redemption for us, and our eternal future with Him by placing our faith and trust in Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

And with that, you have to choose what you wish to follow. Physical reality, or what you have in your imagination. And if the two are in conflict, then i would say that is an issue.

I didn't imagine the book of Genesis - it had already been written down before I was born... and I'm having absolutely zero difficulty mentally reconciling physical reality with God's spoken word.

And this isnt about being Christian or not. It isnt about rejecting scripture or not either. It is about perception and imagination with respect to literature.

You just have to make a choice. Of if you accept physical reality, or if you would rather live the rest of your life in conflict with what is real, and in a sort of darkness of knowledge of the physical universe.

I think you're describing yourself here, I have no issues believing in God, His word, and physical reality - there is no inner conflict - I am completely at peace with reality and God's word, it's great. The conflict here you describe is what one existed within you, which is why you have interpreted days to mean billions of years and the account of Noah and God's judgment being poured out to have been a local event (I think that is your view regarding the flood).

Notice how nobody actually has an explanation for the lack of geologic evidence for a global flood. Kurt Wise offers a few ideas, but just as quickly as he offers them, others here such as yourself, are suggesting that many things are unknown, or perhaps cannot be known.

This is because such evidence doesnt exist. This is why young earthers cannot get a single unified story of how it all happened, because there are too many logical contradictions that young earth creationism holds with reality.

Just like The Barbarian, quickly resorting to what you think you know about what you've been taught about certain field(s) of science as the 'ultimate' proof. You indicate you are not rejecting scripture; however, it would seem, for example, you do not believe this passage from Genesis 7:4 (from God):

"For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground."

There are several variations I can see as to how one might read this (and possibly other variations):

1) We can believe this passage demonstrates God's intent to wipe out every living thing on the face of the earth (biblical creationist view, my view). Or,

2) We can believe this never happened at all, and the entire text is just a remnant left-over from Babylonian myth as some within CF have proposed (I don't think this is your view, but you can correct me if it is). Or,

3) We can believe this happened, but was not a global flood... perhaps just localized to the Mesopotamian valley area, for example (I think this may be closer to your position).

For those who don't believe a flood ever happened at all (for whatever reason), this is a rejection of [some portion of] scripture. I will not invest much effort/time debating this point.

If one says the flood was local, this is a contrast to the text as the implication is "every living thing on the face of the earth" was also local at the time, OR that it was not intended to be "every living thing", just the living things say in the Mesopotamian valley area (even though the text was "every living thing"). The idea of being global is affirmed elsewhere in scripture.

So, if every living thing is said to have been local, the onus is on the person that makes this argument to then demonstrate (and we'll keep with your criteria that physical reality is 'best evidence') how all the localized life ended up as fossils across the globe. Or...

Alternatively (and there may be others), if every living thing is said to have been global, but the flood was only local, the onus is on the person that makes this argument to (1) philosophically explain why God would not have poured out judgment on all living things, when He said "every living thing", thinking about the context of why He was pouring out His judgment in the first place (bear in mind Peter (2 Peter 3:6) & Jesus (Matthew 24:38-39 and Luke 17:27) both refer to the flood in a global context, also noting there have been major local floods since this time, when God promised there would not be, the implications to the doctrine of judgment, etc...), AND (2) again keeping with the physical reality card since that is your standard, demonstrate evidence for a localized flood that would have destroyed all the life in just a certain area of the world and how this is uniquely identifiable as a discordance in both the fossil record and life forms alive today for just that local area vs the fossil record and life forms alive everywhere else across the globe, how a localized flood would have supported a vessel the size of the ark for more than a year, etc.... Note that these kinds of questions have already been given consideration:
https://isgenesishistory.com/christians-think-noah-flood-local/

Note the following article on NSCE's website does not address physical issues such as not being able to support a vessel like the ark for the span of a year, also making assumptions about the landscape, not to mention completely distorts and destroys what is written in the bible, making it sound like this was just some local villagers that happened to survive a local flood... they were floating down the Tigris and over flood plains, completely ignoring what God's intent of the flood was, etc...:
Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth

My favorite is a subtitle in the article, "Regional Evidence for the Noachian and Similar Floods" - to which I respond, "Remember, God promised he would not do this again... there would not be 'similar' floods".

BioLogos takes the 'hyperbole' path in that Noah, his family, and the events of the flood are intended just to teach things of spiritual significance. Notice too, they omit what Jesus and Peter say:

How should we interpret the Genesis flood account?

I found it peculiar they present a false dichotomy on interpreting the Bible as it relates to science:
1. Abandon our faith in order to accept the results of science (or)
2. Deny the scientific evidence to maintain our interpretations of Scripture (or)
3. Reconsider our interpretations of Scripture in light of the evidence from God’s creation

Look at #2. Notice, no mention of the possibility that the interpretation of scientific evidence could be wrong - it's off the list. This is a demonstrated a logical fallacy. I'll just provide the following (9 examples) in hopes we really don't need to have a long debate on whether scientifically held beliefs have ever been wrong:

The top 10 most spectacularly wrong widely held scientific theories

Now, I'm not attempting to "assign" work here or even ask you provide a explanation/response (least of all, asking for how you've been taught to interpret the evidence by your college professors) - just posing the questions (rhetorically) as you consider whether the flood was local or global -> may be worth looking into as time/interest permits at your own leisure.

They live in a perpetual darkness, continuing to vary and to be divided and without an understanding of their own reality. In a dream world. Where only what they imagine is real, and beyond their own minds, nothing makes sense.

"You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?" (Isaiah 29:16).

In other words, it seems you may be thinking that what God says about the flood (and creation) is wrong and that you know better because of what you have been taught at whatever university you went to in completing your geology degree.

 

[NobleMouse]

Post 929 in this thread.

Mouse wrote:



Barbarian suggests:
Perhaps English is not your first language? If I say that Dr. Wise wrote that the huge number of transitionals is "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory", the part in quote marks is what he said. The part not in quote marks is what I said.

I strongly suspect you already know this. Probably everyone else reading here, knows this. So why even bother with that kind of thing? C'mon.

The actual statement:
He's a creationist, after all. But an honest one. He openly admits that the huge number of transitional series (he lists over a dozen series, each with a number of transitionals) is "strong evidence" for macroevolution. And while he expresses faith in the idea that creationism might someday find a way to explain all these transitional forms, he admits that he has yet to find that way.

Good, so you affirm you added 'huge' as shown on the first line above just under the words "The actual statement:" (I've bolded/underlined). Wanted to make sure we're all clear this was your embellishment and not reflecting anything K. Wise actually said, and not necessarily his opinion.

 

[The Barbarian]

Good, so you affirm you added 'huge'...

...was my word. I did that by putting his words in quotation marks, and not putting mine in quotation marks. For most people, that's not confusing. I'll keep that issue in mind for you, from now on, and include a statement. How about I put quoted material in dark red always? Would that help? Let's just do that so you don't make another mistake like that.

Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates. Additionally, the creation model is not well enough developed at present to properly evaluate this evidence or to develop an adequate alternative scenario or explanation.
YE Creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

 

[The Barbarian]

Your blizzard of posts -- a common debating trick -- are unhelpful. If you want to carry on a conversation, I will oblige. Otherwise, I will move to the end of your blizzard, and comment.

I checked Dr. Kurt Wise's research and lectures. He stated (paraphrasing), "there are claims of bioturbation in the geological column, but when they are examined the lamination is still there." As aforementioned, he also stated that there are lots of fossils of the burrowers, but only limited loss of lamination.

Now, answer this question: if the geological column was formed over millions of years, why is there any lamination -- any at all, except in highly saline lakes like the Dead Sea? Why is there world-wide lamination?

Not all lamination is the same. For example, in some river basins, there is an annual lamination causes by spring flooding.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009WR008360

There can likewise be lamina from irregular flooding. A few miles from my house, there are dead trees that have been standing for decades in a lake flooded by a dam. Lamina from stormwater washing sediment down into those shallows are forming periodically.

Tidal rhythmites are formed twice daily:
The thickness of each layer of a tidal rhythmite deposit is determined in a general way by how high the tide rises that day. Thicker layers reflect higher tides and thin layers reflect lower tides. In some cases, tidal rhythmites consist of stacked successions of layers in which successive layers gradually thicken and then thin. This progressive thickening and thinning is in response to the moon and sun changing their positions in the sky relative to our coastal tidal flat.

To understand these changes it is often useful to think in terms of purely astronomical tides and equilibrium tidal theory. By definition, equilibrium tides are ideal and defined by the gravitational forces of the moon, and to a lesser extent the sun, on an idealized earth completely covered by deep water of uniform depth that is capable of instantly responding to changes in tractive forces.
Ancient Tides Recorded in Indiana Rocks

There can be varves, which form two layers annually:

Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology
Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology

And so on. BTW, I'm a biologist, not a geologist, so I'm sure there are other sorts of lamina as well. I merely know of some of them, because of their importance in paleontology.

There is no reason why being old should cause them to be removed. That makes no sense at all.

 

[NobleMouse]

...was my word. I did that by putting his words in quotation marks, and not putting mine in quotation marks. For most people, that's not confusing. I'll keep that issue in mind for you, from now on, and include a statement. How about I put quoted material in dark red always? Would that help? Let's just do that so you don't make another mistake like that.

Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates. Additionally, the creation model is not well enough developed at present to properly evaluate this evidence or to develop an adequate alternative scenario or explanation.
YE Creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Yes that is helpful. I don't think it was your intent to mislead/misrepresent, but I could sense it was your view that this demonstrated a 'huge' number, but you juxtaposed it right alongside with what Kurt said, synthesizing the two into a singular thought/sentence:

"He openly admits that the huge number of transitional series (he lists over a dozen series, each with a number of transitionals) is "strong evidence" for macroevolution."

To parse it back out, Kurt said the following in this paper where you reference "strong evidence":

"Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Then, separately, in your opinion, this demonstrates a huge number of transitional series. Interesting that the hominid series is referenced in this paper as I don't think T. Wood would whistle quite the same tune as his research has demonstrated a distinct boundary between homo and pithecus fossils that has never been bridged by the fossil record to date. Worth pointing out, this is referring to research done since after 1995.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes that is helpful. I don't think it was your intent to mislead/misrepresent,

I'm still having some trouble understanding why you didn't understand the quote marks.

"Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Then, separately, in your opinion, this demonstrates a huge number of transitional series.

Huge number of transitionals, as I said. Dr. Wise cites 16 series of them, each with several to dozens of transitional forms. That's a huge number. All predicted by evolutionary theory, and (even more convincing) not one that contradicts evolutionary theory. And keep in mind, that's only a sampling. There are many, many more. Would you like to learn about some more of them?

Interesting that the hominid series is referenced in this paper as I don't think T. Wood would whistle quite the same tune as his research has demonstrated a distinct boundary between homo and pithecus fossils that has never been bridged by the fossil record to date.

Hmmm.. Wood puts humans and Australopithecines in the same group. That's interesting. As Wood admits, there are no clear distinctions, and even creationists cannot agree where the imagined "boundary" exists:

Creationists do not agree on which of these fossil taxa are human. Most extreme are the old-earth creationists Rana and Ross (2005), who accept only modern Homo sapiens sapiens as human. Nearly all young-earth creationists accept Neanderthals as human and australopiths as not human, but opinions on other members of the genus Homo vary. Homo erectus (sensu lato, including H. ergaster) is viewed as human by Hartwig-Scherer (1998), Lubenow (2004, chap. 12), and Wise (2005). In contrast, Gish (1995, pp. 304–305) and Bowden (1981, pp. 208–210) view H. erectus as a mix of ape and human specimens, and Cuozzo (1998, p. 101) labeled H. erectus an ape. Gish (1995, p. 279) and Hartwig-Scherer (1999) classify Homo habilis as ape, but H. habilis is considered to be a mix of ape and possibly human specimens by Lubenow (2004, pp. 299–301). The skull KNM-ER 1470 (Homo rudolfensis) is accepted as possibly human by Bowden (1981, p. 200), Cuozzo (1977), and Lubenow (2004, pp. 328–329), while Hartwig-Scherer and Brandt (2007) and Mehlert (1999) consider it an ape. The recently-discovered Flores remains (Brown et al. 2004) are considered human by Wise (2005), and the Dmanisi hominids (Gabunia et al. 2000) are considered very similar to australopiths by Hartwig-Scherer (2002a).

Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin
Todd Wood, "Answers in Genesis"

Show me the boundary, and the hominins on each side of it. I can't think of one characteristic between Australopithecines and humans that doesn't have intermediate forms. Show us this "distinct boundary", and what apomorphic characters on one side exist that don't exist on the other. You might also explain why, if it's so clear, why even creationists disagree about it. That's not a rhetorical question. You're on. Show us.

Worth pointing out, this is referring to research done since after 1995.

Wood seems to have inadvertently supported Darwin on this one. Darwin, as you know, also wrote that the boundaries between taxa tend to be fuzzy and often controversial (as they are in the Hominid series that Dr. Wise called "strong evidence" for macroevolution.

 

[dcalling]

That is all based on unprovable speculation.

Dan

That is true, but this theory resembles the events in the Bible.

 

[Job 33:6]

Just like The Barbarian, quickly resorting to what you think you know about what you've been taught about certain field(s) of science as the 'ultimate' proof. You indicate you are not rejecting scripture; however, it would seem, for example, you do not believe this passage from Genesis 7:4 (from God):

I think its a matter of going with...reality. Moreso than it is a rejection of scripture. Reality is something that...you cant really go wrong with. If a rock is hard for example, it will be hard no matter who looks at it or feels it or tastes it etc. It will forever be hard, and you can smash a marshmellow or a pillow against it, and the pillow and marshmellow will deform while the rock stays hard.

This is, a case of reality. It just is what it is. And this is what God has created. Nothing can really change it from being what it is.

Interpretations of scripture on the other hand, can go any which way.

For example, we could take the simple phrase "the cake is in the oven". And, we could interpret literally every noun in the sentence, and transform it into countless things. The oven could be any color, any shape, any make or model. It could be an easy bake oven, it could be a toy oven that isnt even an oven at all, rather its just a plastic box. The cake, it could be any size, shape, flavor, made of any ingredients. I could make a cake out of dirt, and someone else might say, well thats not even a cake.

So, by depending on words, no matter what authority is behind those words, if our understanding of reality is souly dependent on those words, we are susceptible to misunderstanding them.

Whereas with a rock, you cant be susceptible to misunderstanding the hardness of a rock. It just is what it is. And if you are confused about it, you can go pick the rock up and smash it into a marshmellow to confirm that it is hard.

One position is dependent upon the imagination, circling around words. While the other is based on reality.

And God is the source of reality. He created everything. So by default, reality of the created rock, is more likely to be real, than the imagination that a human being formulated around scripture. The bible is a real thing, it is physically existent. But mankinds understanding of it, is something that only exists in the minds of people who read it.

But a rock will exist, whether people perceive its existence or not. And no person can imagine that the rock is something that it is not. No person could imagine that the rock is soft for example, because if anyone did suggest such a thing, we could just smash it into a marshmellow to confirm its hardness.


-----------------------------------------------------

The difference here is, reality vs imagination. And of course reality is the more...real entity between the two. No matter what any of us thinks scripture says, the rock is the rock. The perceived interpretation is the interpretation.

 

[dcalling]

Unless we had the fossil of every organism that ever lived, there would be gaps. The point is that we now have transitionals for almost every major group. If creationism were true, there wouldn't be any.



Let's do a little test to see how complete it is (or isn't):
Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional.

You're on. What will it be?

Our stand point is different. You relaxed rules a lot by saying "2 major evo con groups". My standard is rather different, given any 2 (not major) evo connected groups and you should be able to find transition fossil.

 

[dcalling]

"Reality is something that...you cant really go wrong with", except that is in the sense of traditional physics, where in the 1900 scientist thought we now know everything. Then quantum physics is funded and now it is clearly established that we can't accurately measure anything, all what we see are just a somewhat correct image.

Given a simple example. What is light? it was observed wave, observed to have the attributes of practice, and we have mathmatic function that fits both and yet they reconcile.

What we observed as reality is there, but how you interpret that is a total different matter.

I think its a matter of going with...reality. Moreso than it is a rejection of scripture. Reality is something that...you cant really go wrong with. If a rock is hard for example, it will be hard no matter who looks at it or feels it or tastes it etc. It will forever be hard, and you can smash a marshmellow or a pillow against it, and the pillow and marshmellow will deform while the rock stays hard.

This is, a case of reality. It just is what it is. And this is what God has created. Nothing can really change it from being what it is.

Interpretations of scripture on the other hand, can go any which way.

For example, we could take the simple phrase "the cake is in the oven". And, we could interpret literally every noun in the sentence, and transform it into countless things. The oven could be any color, any shape, any make or model. It could be an easy bake oven, it could be a toy oven that isnt even an oven at all, rather its just a plastic box. The cake, it could be any size, shape, flavor, made of any ingredients. I could make a cake out of dirt, and someone else might say, well thats not even a cake.

So, by depending on words, no matter what authority is behind those words, if our understanding of reality is souly dependent on those words, we are susceptible to misunderstanding them.

Whereas with a rock, you cant be susceptible to misunderstanding the hardness of a rock. It just is what it is. And if you are confused about it, you can go pick the rock up and smash it into a marshmellow to confirm that it is hard.

One position is dependent upon the imagination, circling around words. While the other is based on reality.

And God is the source of reality. He created everything. So by default, reality of the created rock, is more likely to be real, than the imagination that a human being formulated around scripture. The bible is a real thing, it is physically existent. But mankinds understanding of it, is something that only exists in the minds of people who read it.

But a rock will exist, whether people perceive its existence or not. And no person can imagine that the rock is something that it is not. No person could imagine that the rock is soft for example, because if anyone did suggest such a thing, we could just smash it into a marshmellow to confirm its hardness.


-----------------------------------------------------

The difference here is, reality vs imagination. And of course reality is the more...real entity between the two. No matter what any of us thinks scripture says, the rock is the rock. The perceived interpretation is the interpretation.

 

[David Kent]

Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are very well established major theories, with enormous levels of verification and evidence. The ToE is stronger, probably, than the BBT, but it's sort of like saying 'steel is fairly strong but titanium alloy is stronger' - either one will serve for tableware with no danger of failure due to stress. At this point there are no known major issues with either theory. Details to be filled in? Yes. Serious difficulties? No.

So what was there that went bang in the beginning?

 

[NobleMouse]

I'm still having some trouble understanding why you didn't understand the quote marks.

"Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

I already articulated at great length.

Huge number of transitionals, as I said. Dr. Wise cites 16 series of them, each with several to dozens of transitional forms. That's a huge number. All predicted by evolutionary theory, and (even more convincing) not one that contradicts evolutionary theory. And keep in mind, that's only a sampling. There are many, many more. Would you like to learn about some more of them?

Only from someone with a PhD that also believes God's word is true regarding creation.

Hmmm.. Wood puts humans and Australopithecines in the same group. That's interesting. As Wood admits, there are no clear distinctions, and even creationists cannot agree where the imagined "boundary" exists:

Creationists do not agree on which of these fossil taxa are human. Most extreme are the old-earth creationists Rana and Ross (2005), who accept only modern Homo sapiens sapiens as human. Nearly all young-earth creationists accept Neanderthals as human and australopiths as not human, but opinions on other members of the genus Homo vary. Homo erectus (sensu lato, including H. ergaster) is viewed as human by Hartwig-Scherer (1998), Lubenow (2004, chap. 12), and Wise (2005). In contrast, Gish (1995, pp. 304–305) and Bowden (1981, pp. 208–210) view H. erectus as a mix of ape and human specimens, and Cuozzo (1998, p. 101) labeled H. erectus an ape. Gish (1995, p. 279) and Hartwig-Scherer (1999) classify Homo habilis as ape, but H. habilis is considered to be a mix of ape and possibly human specimens by Lubenow (2004, pp. 299–301). The skull KNM-ER 1470 (Homo rudolfensis) is accepted as possibly human by Bowden (1981, p. 200), Cuozzo (1977), and Lubenow (2004, pp. 328–329), while Hartwig-Scherer and Brandt (2007) and Mehlert (1999) consider it an ape. The recently-discovered Flores remains (Brown et al. 2004) are considered human by Wise (2005), and the Dmanisi hominids (Gabunia et al. 2000) are considered very similar to australopiths by Hartwig-Scherer (2002a).

Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin
Todd Wood, "Answers in Genesis"

Show me the boundary, and the hominins on each side of it. I can't think of one characteristic between Australopithecines and humans that doesn't have intermediate forms. Show us this "distinct boundary", and what apomorphic characters on one side exist that don't exist on the other. You might also explain why, if it's so clear, why even creationists disagree about it. That's not a rhetorical question. You're on. Show us.

Wood seems to have inadvertently supported Darwin on this one. Darwin, as you know, also wrote that the boundaries between taxa tend to be fuzzy and often controversial (as they are in the Hominid series that Dr. Wise called "strong evidence" for macroevolution.

Here is T. Wood discussing - if you feel he is supporting transitional forms exist between pithecus and homo - please continue to feel so:
https://isgenesishistory.com/ape-me...149973405&mc_cid=1f954a62a8&mc_eid=abc935f093

You will see the boundary in the diagrams he presents during this video - first showing up around 24 minutes in - I think he says, "what you should notice here, is that there is a big giant gap." In fact, these same diagrams with the same boundary are in the AiG article you referenced.

Nothing is connecting the clusters... the gap remains with no fossil that fills the gap. As for Sediba, it seems it was incorrectly placed in australopithecus and is more appropriately homo sediba. When you say, "show me the boundary, and the hominins on each side of it." here it is from 28:06 into the video:

 

[JackRT]

So what was there that went bang in the beginning?

Some have suggested that the singularity of the BBT is the very moment of divine creation.There are several viable but as yet untested hypotheses that the birth of our present universe was the moment of death of a previous universe. We have no problem speculating that a completely unobservable and untestable God always existed. I see absolutely no reason why the universe in one form or another always existed as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Reality is something that...you cant really go wrong with", except that is in the sense of traditional physics, where in the 1900 scientist thought we now know everything. Then quantum physics is funded and now it is clearly established that we can't accurately measure anything, all what we see are just a somewhat correct image.

Given a simple example. What is light? it was observed wave, observed to have the attributes of practice, and we have mathmatic function that fits both and yet they reconcile.

What we observed as reality is there, but how you interpret that is a total different matter.

There is a difference between discussion of quantum theory and quantum mechanics, and talking about simple geology.

If you really wanted to get technical, aliens living inside black holes might perceive space and time differently than we do. But for basic every day science, such as simple fundamental geology and biology, things are as they are. A rock is hard and there is no real way to perceive such a thing differently in any testable way.

Subatomic particles appear to come in and out of existence as well. But again, we are talking about simple everyday rocks, not subatomic particles and quantum theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

I already articulated at great length.

Still hard for me to see how you didn't recognize quotation marks.

Barbarian observes:
Huge number of transitionals, as I said. Dr. Wise cites 16 series of them, each with several to dozens of transitional forms. That's a huge number. All predicted by evolutionary theory, and (even more convincing) not one that contradicts evolutionary theory. And keep in mind, that's only a sampling. There are many, many more. Would you like to learn about some more of them?

Only from someone with a PhD that also believes God's word is true regarding creation.

Dr. Wise even believes your interpretation of God's word regarding creation. And yet you won't believe him.

However, let's go on...

Primitive arthropods to spiders:
Attercopus is an extinct genus of arachnids, containing one species Attercopus fimbriunguis, known from a Devonian-aged fossil. It is placed in the extinct order Uraraneida,[1] spider-like animals able to produce silk, but which lacked true spinnerets and retained a segmented abdomen bearing a flagellum-like tail resembling that of a whip scorpion. They are thought to be close to the origins of spiders.
Attercopus - Wikipedia

Has a number of spider apomorphic traits, but has segmented abdomen like a primitive arthropod. Lacks spinnerets.

Wood roaches to termites:
This species shows uncanny similarities to certain cockroaches, the termites' closest relatives. These similarities include the anal lobe of the wing and the laying of eggs in bunches, rather than singly. It is the only living member of its genus Mastotermes and its family Mastotermitidae, though numerous fossil taxa are known. The termites were traditionally placed in the Exopterygota, but such an indiscriminate treatment makes that group a paraphyletic grade of basal neopterans. Thus, the cockroaches, termites, and their relatives are nowadays placed in a clade called the Dictyoptera. These singular termites appear at first glance like a cockroach's abdomen stuck to a termite's fore part. Their wings have the same form as those of the roaches, and its eggs are laid in a case as are roach eggs. It is thought to have evolved from the same ancestors as the wood roaches (Cryptocercus) in the Permian. Fossil wings have been discovered in the Permian of Kansas which have a close resemblance to wings of Mastotermes of the Mastotermitidae, which is the most primitive living termite. This fossil is called Pycnoblattina. It folded its wings in a convex pattern between segments 1a and 2a. Mastotermes is the only living insect that does the same.
Mastotermes darwiniensis - Wikipedia

The "frogamander":
Gerobatrachus is an extinct genus of amphibamid temnospondyl (represented by the type species Gerobatrachus hottoni) that lived in the Early Permian, approximately 290 million years ago (Ma), in the area that is now Baylor County, Texas. When it was first described in 2008, Gerobatrachus was announced to be the closest relative of Batrachia, the group that includes modern frogs and salamanders. It possesses a mixture of characteristics from both groups, including a large frog-like head and a salamander-like tail. These features have led to it being dubbed a frogamander by the press.
Gerobatrachus - Wikipedia

Transitional turtles:
The origin and early evolution of turtles have long been major contentious issues in vertebrate zoology1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11. This is due to conflicting character evidence from molecules and morphology and a lack of transitional fossils from the critical time interval. The ∼220-million-year-old stem-turtle Odontochelys from China12 has a partly formed shell and many turtle-like features in its postcranial skeleton. Unlike the 214-million-year-old Proganochelys from Germany and Thailand, it retains marginal teeth and lacks a carapace. Odontochelys is separated by a large temporal gap from the ∼260-million-year-old Eunotosaurus from South Africa, which has been hypothesized as the earliest stem-turtle4,5. Here we report a new reptile, Pappochelys, that is structurally and chronologically intermediate between Eunotosaurus and Odontochelys and dates from the Middle Triassic period (∼240 million years ago). The three taxa share anteroposteriorly broad trunk ribs that are T-shaped in cross-section and bear sculpturing, elongate dorsal vertebrae, and modified limb girdles. Pappochelys closely resembles Odontochelys in various features of the limb girdles. Unlike Odontochelys, it has a cuirass of robust paired gastralia in place of a plastron. Pappochelys provides new evidence that the plastron partly formed through serial fusion of gastralia3,13. Its skull has small upper and ventrally open lower temporal fenestrae, supporting the hypothesis of diapsid affinities of turtles2,7,8,9,10,14,15.

A Middle Triassic stem-turtle and the evolution of the turtle body plan

Would you like to see some more of these?

Barbarian notes that Todd Wood supports Darwin's assertion that there are no clear boundaries between taxa:

Here is T. Wood discussing

Creationists do not agree on which of these fossil taxa are human. Most extreme are the old-earth creationists Rana and Ross (2005), who accept only modern Homo sapiens sapiens as human. Nearly all young-earth creationists accept Neanderthals as human and australopiths as not human, but opinions on other members of the genus Homo vary. Homo erectus (sensu lato, including H. ergaster) is viewed as human by Hartwig-Scherer (1998), Lubenow (2004, chap. 12), and Wise (2005). In contrast, Gish (1995, pp. 304–305) and Bowden (1981, pp. 208–210) view H. erectus as a mix of ape and human specimens, and Cuozzo (1998, p. 101) labeled H. erectus an ape. Gish (1995, p. 279) and Hartwig-Scherer (1999) classify Homo habilis as ape, but H. habilis is considered to be a mix of ape and possibly human specimens by Lubenow (2004, pp. 299–301). The skull KNM-ER 1470 (Homo rudolfensis) is accepted as possibly human by Bowden (1981, p. 200), Cuozzo (1977), and Lubenow (2004, pp. 328–329), while Hartwig-Scherer and Brandt (2007) and Mehlert (1999) consider it an ape. The recently-discovered Flores remains (Brown et al. 2004) are considered human by Wise (2005), and the Dmanisi hominids (Gabunia et al. 2000) are considered very similar to australopiths by Hartwig-Scherer (2002a).

Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin
Todd Wood, "Answers in Genesis"

As you see, Wood admits that even creationists cannot agree on boundaries between the transitional forms in the hominid series, cited by Kurt Wise as being "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Unfortunately Wood didn't cite the characters by which he assumed clear distinctions. Indeed, he was forced to reclassify the transitionals between taxa in order to make his argument. The challenge remains open:

What characters are lacking in primitive hominins that are present in the genus Homo?

 

[The Barbarian]

Our stand point is different. You relaxed rules a lot by saying "2 major evo con groups".

If you're willing to admit that there are transitionals only between groups said to be evolutionarily connected, then you've conceded the point. As you know, there are never transitionals found where evolutionary theory says they shouldn't be.

My standard is rather different, given any 2 (not major) evo connected groups and you should be able to find transition fossil.

Even there, there are many, many such transitionals, although we haven't yet found all of them. So let's see what you've got for any two groups said to be evolutionarily connected.[/QUOTE]

 

[NobleMouse]

I think its a matter of going with...reality. Moreso than it is a rejection of scripture. Reality is something that...you cant really go wrong with. If a rock is hard for example, it will be hard no matter who looks at it or feels it or tastes it etc. It will forever be hard, and you can smash a marshmellow or a pillow against it, and the pillow and marshmellow will deform while the rock stays hard.

Philosophically speaking, perception is reality. You referenced things like reality being something you can touch, smell, taste, feel, etc... all the things of classical scientific study. Well, absolutely none of these qualities applies to history... you cannot touch things like 4500 years ago, much less 4.5 billion years ago, you cannot smell it, taste it, feel it, or see it, etc... it's history - all you have is what is here in the present. Ironically, you have to "imagine" the events that would have led to the conditions of the present.

Assuming you maybe once had an American History class somewhere along the way, did they just give you a bayonet, a boot, a candlestick, various other artifacts... or did you read about the history of America and discuss in class? I hope you didn't misplace your trust in the words you read, say about the Civil War, as you feel would be the case in trusting God's word.

This is, a case of reality. It just is what it is. And this is what God has created. Nothing can really change it from being what it is.

I am in agreement that it is what God created... but what you call reality is just a perception of the past. When someone has a PhD in geology, this denotes a doctorate of philosophy in the applied science of geology... it's a philosophical view of things with a structured method of study applied - this is not all black & white, yes & no, true & false. You know this to be true as there is the principle of uniformitarianism that guides much of what is understood in conventional geological assumptions.

If I want to know more about American history, I turn to the history books to get the story before I turn to artifacts to try to piece together a story. Similarly, if I want to know about the beginning of creation, I turn to God's word to get the story before I turn to the fossils and rocks to piece together a story. You and I both know what God's word says regarding creation and the flood.

Interpretations of scripture on the other hand, can go any which way.

For example, we could take the simple phrase "the cake is in the oven". And, we could interpret literally every noun in the sentence, and transform it into countless things. The oven could be any color, any shape, any make or model. It could be an easy bake oven, it could be a toy oven that isnt even an oven at all, rather its just a plastic box. The cake, it could be any size, shape, flavor, made of any ingredients. I could make a cake out of dirt, and someone else might say, well thats not even a cake.

So, by depending on words, no matter what authority is behind those words, if our understanding of reality is souly dependent on those words, we are susceptible to misunderstanding them.

Yes we've been through this example before and your position assumes there's either an intent to misrepresent or that scripture cannot be understood. If you believe scripture is that difficult to understand correctly, you are free to continue believing so... but don't sleep too well tonight thinking you've really been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ either... because salvation may not be applicable to you, you may just think you are saved, if you really are saved (now), salvation may in fact be revocable, "Jesus" may have been in reference to any number of people other than the only Son of God, a new body may not be literally a new body, heaven may not actually be any different than here, you may never actually see Jesus face to face or other family members who have already died, and eternity may not mean there is no death, disease, or suffering in the way you think about it.

Whereas with a rock, you cant be susceptible to misunderstanding the hardness of a rock. It just is what it is. And if you are confused about it, you can go pick the rock up and smash it into a marshmellow to confirm that it is hard.

One position is dependent upon the imagination, circling around words. While the other is based on reality.

You are the one inventing countless meanings for words (mostly without cause or reason for doing so) - like in your example. By your own line of reasoning, nobody can really trust anything the Bible says, including the parts around salvation, so they might as well become atheists, pick a different faith, or maybe just make up their own faith. It seems your faith is grounded in what you have been taught is reality and less on what the bible says... but remember, faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1 ...assuming you believe ithe biblical definition of 'faith' means what it says).

And God is the source of reality. He created everything. So by default, reality of the created rock, is more likely to be real, than the imagination that a human being formulated around scripture. The bible is a real thing, it is physically existent. But mankinds understanding of it, is something that only exists in the minds of people who read it.

God is the source, but not your perception of history outside of and in contradiction to His word.

But a rock will exist, whether people perceive its existence or not. And no person can imagine that the rock is something that it is not. No person could imagine that the rock is soft for example, because if anyone did suggest such a thing, we could just smash it into a marshmellow to confirm its hardness.

-----------------------------------------------------

The difference here is, reality vs imagination. And of course reality is the more...real entity between the two. No matter what any of us thinks scripture says, the rock is the rock. The perceived interpretation is the interpretation.

How very bizarre of a post this is from you - I don't know I've seen a Christian charge so headlong into naturalism - going on about things like the hardness of rocks in the same way Gollum went on about that ring of his. You may believe in the hardness of rocks, but you have built your faith on shifting sands brother - it is just the conventional wisdom - the philosophy of the day (here and now) and will change. Go back and re-read post #1128 and see if this really is representative of how you would want your faith in God's word to be characterized. You have so much more to say about rocks than you do God... go back and look through your links on Old Earth Geology, Part 1 and Part 2 and see how often you [don't] reference God, how often you [don't] reference scripture.

What proceeds out of our mouth (or written/typed) is what is in our heart, so all I can take away from this post and everything else I've ever read from you is that it would seem you place higher value on rocks than you do on God and His word. Everybody here has the opportunity to be a fool for something... something we will defend without shame. I know what that is for you and you know what that is for me. If I am to be found a fool when I stand in judgment before Christ, I want it to be because I foolishly believed the Bible meant what it said - even in the face of the philosophers of my day.

Oh, whatever you think I said above, perhaps I didn't - you may just be imagining I meant what you think my words to have meant.

 

[NobleMouse]

Still hard for me to see how you didn't recognize quotation marks.

Barbarian observes:
Huge number of transitionals, as I said. Dr. Wise cites 16 series of them, each with several to dozens of transitional forms. That's a huge number. All predicted by evolutionary theory, and (even more convincing) not one that contradicts evolutionary theory. And keep in mind, that's only a sampling. There are many, many more. Would you like to learn about some more of them?



Dr. Wise even believes your interpretation of God's word regarding creation. And yet you won't believe him.

However, let's go on...

Primitive arthropods to spiders:
Attercopus is an extinct genus of arachnids, containing one species Attercopus fimbriunguis, known from a Devonian-aged fossil. It is placed in the extinct order Uraraneida,[1] spider-like animals able to produce silk, but which lacked true spinnerets and retained a segmented abdomen bearing a flagellum-like tail resembling that of a whip scorpion. They are thought to be close to the origins of spiders.
Attercopus - Wikipedia

Has a number of spider apomorphic traits, but has segmented abdomen like a primitive arthropod. Lacks spinnerets.

Wood roaches to termites:
This species shows uncanny similarities to certain cockroaches, the termites' closest relatives. These similarities include the anal lobe of the wing and the laying of eggs in bunches, rather than singly. It is the only living member of its genus Mastotermes and its family Mastotermitidae, though numerous fossil taxa are known. The termites were traditionally placed in the Exopterygota, but such an indiscriminate treatment makes that group a paraphyletic grade of basal neopterans. Thus, the cockroaches, termites, and their relatives are nowadays placed in a clade called the Dictyoptera. These singular termites appear at first glance like a cockroach's abdomen stuck to a termite's fore part. Their wings have the same form as those of the roaches, and its eggs are laid in a case as are roach eggs. It is thought to have evolved from the same ancestors as the wood roaches (Cryptocercus) in the Permian. Fossil wings have been discovered in the Permian of Kansas which have a close resemblance to wings of Mastotermes of the Mastotermitidae, which is the most primitive living termite. This fossil is called Pycnoblattina. It folded its wings in a convex pattern between segments 1a and 2a. Mastotermes is the only living insect that does the same.
Mastotermes darwiniensis - Wikipedia

The "frogamander":
Gerobatrachus is an extinct genus of amphibamid temnospondyl (represented by the type species Gerobatrachus hottoni) that lived in the Early Permian, approximately 290 million years ago (Ma), in the area that is now Baylor County, Texas. When it was first described in 2008, Gerobatrachus was announced to be the closest relative of Batrachia, the group that includes modern frogs and salamanders. It possesses a mixture of characteristics from both groups, including a large frog-like head and a salamander-like tail. These features have led to it being dubbed a frogamander by the press.
Gerobatrachus - Wikipedia

Transitional turtles:
The origin and early evolution of turtles have long been major contentious issues in vertebrate zoology1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11. This is due to conflicting character evidence from molecules and morphology and a lack of transitional fossils from the critical time interval. The ∼220-million-year-old stem-turtle Odontochelys from China12 has a partly formed shell and many turtle-like features in its postcranial skeleton. Unlike the 214-million-year-old Proganochelys from Germany and Thailand, it retains marginal teeth and lacks a carapace. Odontochelys is separated by a large temporal gap from the ∼260-million-year-old Eunotosaurus from South Africa, which has been hypothesized as the earliest stem-turtle4,5. Here we report a new reptile, Pappochelys, that is structurally and chronologically intermediate between Eunotosaurus and Odontochelys and dates from the Middle Triassic period (∼240 million years ago). The three taxa share anteroposteriorly broad trunk ribs that are T-shaped in cross-section and bear sculpturing, elongate dorsal vertebrae, and modified limb girdles. Pappochelys closely resembles Odontochelys in various features of the limb girdles. Unlike Odontochelys, it has a cuirass of robust paired gastralia in place of a plastron. Pappochelys provides new evidence that the plastron partly formed through serial fusion of gastralia3,13. Its skull has small upper and ventrally open lower temporal fenestrae, supporting the hypothesis of diapsid affinities of turtles2,7,8,9,10,14,15.

A Middle Triassic stem-turtle and the evolution of the turtle body plan

Would you like to see some more of these?

Barbarian notes that Todd Wood supports Darwin's assertion that there are no clear boundaries between taxa:



Creationists do not agree on which of these fossil taxa are human. Most extreme are the old-earth creationists Rana and Ross (2005), who accept only modern Homo sapiens sapiens as human. Nearly all young-earth creationists accept Neanderthals as human and australopiths as not human, but opinions on other members of the genus Homo vary. Homo erectus (sensu lato, including H. ergaster) is viewed as human by Hartwig-Scherer (1998), Lubenow (2004, chap. 12), and Wise (2005). In contrast, Gish (1995, pp. 304–305) and Bowden (1981, pp. 208–210) view H. erectus as a mix of ape and human specimens, and Cuozzo (1998, p. 101) labeled H. erectus an ape. Gish (1995, p. 279) and Hartwig-Scherer (1999) classify Homo habilis as ape, but H. habilis is considered to be a mix of ape and possibly human specimens by Lubenow (2004, pp. 299–301). The skull KNM-ER 1470 (Homo rudolfensis) is accepted as possibly human by Bowden (1981, p. 200), Cuozzo (1977), and Lubenow (2004, pp. 328–329), while Hartwig-Scherer and Brandt (2007) and Mehlert (1999) consider it an ape. The recently-discovered Flores remains (Brown et al. 2004) are considered human by Wise (2005), and the Dmanisi hominids (Gabunia et al. 2000) are considered very similar to australopiths by Hartwig-Scherer (2002a).

Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin
Todd Wood, "Answers in Genesis"

As you see, Wood admits that even creationists cannot agree on boundaries between the transitional forms in the hominid series, cited by Kurt Wise as being "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Unfortunately Wood didn't cite the characters by which he assumed clear distinctions. Indeed, he was forced to reclassify the transitionals between taxa in order to make his argument. The challenge remains open:

What characters are lacking in primitive hominins that are present in the genus Homo?

You seem to have your own agenda of what you want to talk about, largely ignoring what I and others write in response to your posts, so I'll respond accordingly to your posts when I find interest. You may want to read post #1137 as it applies to you as well - just switch out geology references to biology references.

 

[The Barbarian]

How very bizarre of a post this is from you - I don't know I've seen a Christian charge so headlong into naturalism - going on about things like the hardness of rocks in the same way Gollum went on about that ring of his. You may believe in the hardness of rocks, but you have built your faith on shifting sands brother - it is just the conventional wisdom - the philosophy of the day (here and now) and will change. Go back and re-read post #1128 and see if this really is representative of how you would want your faith in God's word to be characterized. You have so much more to say about rocks than you do God... go back and look through your links on Old Earth Geology, Part 1 and Part 2 and see how often you [don't] reference God, how often you [don't] reference scripture.

Perusing through a manual of plumbing, I notice how often it [doesn't] reference God, how often it [doesn't] reference scripture.

You've probably seen a lot of that yourself, although it doesn't seem to bother you. The difference, it appears, is that plumbing doesn't scare you. Why would something like plumbing or science have to reference God or scripture? It makes no sense at all that you think it should.

If you have more confidence in your man-made doctrine of creationism, that's your call. But to expect science and technology to use religion as a source of information is absurd and disrespectful to God.

 

[The Barbarian]

You seem to have your own agenda of what you want to talk about,

We're talking about transitionals. More precisely, we're discussing the problem Todd Wood brings up wherein the boundaries between various genera of hominids are so fuzzy that creationists can't come up with a clear distinction between them. Yes, I notice that Todd has his own ideas about it, but as he admits, so do many other creationists, few of which agree with his. This was first pointed out by Darwin, and it remains a serious problem for creationists, as Wood mentions.