Is evolution a fact or theory?

[The Barbarian]

Well, to be fair it is more than just one fish with legs. So the question becomes, how many transitional fossils is it that you would need to see, to believe? 5? 10? 100? 1,000?

Gish's Law: "Every new transitional fossil creates two new gaps that aren't fillled."

If you had a slow motion film of every single moment, creationists would ask what was between the frames.

 

[dcalling]

Gish's Law: "Every new transitional fossil creates two new gaps that aren't fillled."

If you had a slow motion film of every single moment, creationists would ask what was between the frames.

That is why it is inherently unreliable evidence, leave too much to interpretation, because the moment we say the gaps are big enough as evidence of creation, you will say they look like movie frames

I am just asking repeatable, verifiable testable evidences since you feel so strongly that common ancestry is a scientific fact. Is that too much to ask for?

 

[NobleMouse]

Gish's Law: "Every new transitional fossil creates two new gaps that aren't fillled."

If you had a slow motion film of every single moment, creationists would ask what was between the frames.

The idea of a transitional fossil is elusive by nature as this is based upon evolutionary assumptions/speculation/imagination and is developed based ultimately how a fossil looks (assuming it was even complete and assembled correctly - like a puzzle missing pieces with no box and no picture).

Both secular and creation scientists agree that unrelated life forms can and do develop similar characteristics while living in a shared environment over time. So, in the case of Tiktaalik, Acanthotega, and Ichthyostega we cannot really say with 100% certainty they are transitional steps from kind A to kind B. To attempt to do so unequivocally only reveals presuppositional bias (which we all have). Genetically this is also not falsifiable as genetic material would be long gone given the alleged ages under uniformitarian assumptions. The transitional forms between fish and tetrapods has more to do with an artist's rendering and 3D modeling capabilities and the imagination of scientists, than actual real evidence.

Though life can diversify within created kinds, God created fish and fish remain fish, and God created tetrapods and tetrapods remain tetrapods. Given the apparent loose interpretations that constitute a 'transitional fossil' by secular standards, there has yet to be demonstrated transitions for Trilobites (there are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms and complex invertebrates [such as Trilobites]); also clams, snails, sponges, jellyfish, etc.... Further, fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside. Also dragonflies - the highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record. All of these issues go away if we simply believe God's word is true.

In the entire fossil record there is not a single unequivocal transitional form proving a causal relationship between any two kinds (such as fish > tetrapods, dinosaurs > birds, etc...).

Source:
The Institute for Creation Research

Whatever "truth" one seeks, one will find it - just as many have found the "truth" that no god exists (the Atheist), which you and I see as the living out of 2 Peter 3:5. So philosophically it stands to reason that if we are looking for transitional forms, they will be found; if we believe God created kinds from the beginning as His word says, then we will see that kinds do not become other kinds and the evidence will support both views. Creation is over; there are no new 'kinds', only a diversification of the already created kinds.

 

[NobleMouse]

That is why it is inherently unreliable evidence, leave too much to interpretation, because the moment we say the gaps are big enough as evidence of creation, you will say they look like movie frames

I am just asking repeatable, verifiable testable evidences since you feel so strongly that common ancestry is a scientific fact. Is that too much to ask for?

You may be told that common ancestry is a scientific fact... that you and I came from some protozoa 3.7 billion years ago, but what gets labeled as "fact" in science has gradually become more and more loose. If we want things like absolute facts and absolute truth, there is only one source - The word of God.

 

[Job 33:6]

The thing is, this is all speculative, i.e. only a piece of puzzle, but if you tweak it toward evolution, I can tweak to creation as well, and it definitely suit creation better, since in programming, we use the libraries/coding styles all the time, and you can definitely see how new projects uses old codes. It is very clear to me that God created different things in different stages, and you might not find rabbits at certain stages.

The problem with tweaking it toward creation, in the sense of instantaneous appearance of animals, is that...

What is Gods logic behind it?

For example, why create a paleonmastodon, then destroy it, then create something like a paleomastodon but a little different, then destroy it, then create something slightly more different and destroy that, on and on and on?

Why create a theropod that has feathers and looks like a bird, then just whipe it out, then instantaneously create a bird with theropod like features, then just instantaneously whipe it out, then create a bird?

Why create fish, then wipe the fish out, then create fish that seemingly have legs and amphibian traits like an opposable neck and shoulder bones, then wipe that amphibian like fish out, then create an amphibian?

What is the logic behind it? And further, why does this logic, match genetic phylogeny? Why can a geneticist who knows nothing about fossils, make a prediction based on the DNA of amphibians, where a fossil like tiktaalik would be? Tiktaalik could have been found anywhere on the planet at any depth beneath the earth. But it wasnt anywhere, it was right where it was predicted to be based on evolution.

If instantaneous creation were the way God created life, it would appear instantaneously, it wouldnt appear as a succession of fossils.

And this is the question that, I have yet to hear any creationist (instantaneous young earth creation) answer.

 

[Job 33:6]

It is very clear to me that God created different things in different stages, and you might not find rabbits at certain stages.

There it is, why not have a rabbit not be at an earlier stage?

I have a good answer, its because rabbits evolved from reptiles, so they could not logically be before reptiles. And this is what the bones and genetics show us.

What is the explanation for those who do not believe in evolution, for Gods actions? What is the explanation for His logic?

 

[Job 33:6]

I think it takes more faith, to believe that God created and destroyed and created and destroyed over and over a billion times, in a seemingly orderly sequential way...

It takes more faith to believe this, than it does to simply say...hey, animals mutate, their DNA changes and with that, their morphology changes. And this process happens over time, lots of time, which we already know has passed.

Evolution is simple. Its clear. And the alternative, is some sort of bizarre instantaneous creation by a God that seems uncertain and creates and destroys in ways that...just arent talked about in scripture.

 

[The Barbarian]

The idea of a transitional fossil is elusive by nature

No. It merely requires that it have apomorphic characters of two different groups. Hence, even creationists can identify them.

Read Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Kurt Wise CEN Tech j. , Vol. 9, no. 2 1995

Both secular and creation scientists agree that unrelated life forms can and do develop similar characteristics while living in a shared environment over time. So, in the case of Tiktaalik, Acanthotega, and Ichthyostega we cannot really say with 100% certainty they are transitional steps from kind A to kind B.

By definition, they are. More importantly, evolutionary theory predicted them before they were discovered. Such predictions, if confirmed, are strong evidence for the truth of the theory.

The transitional forms between fish and tetrapods has more to do with an artist's rendering and 3D modeling capabilities and the imagination of scientists, than actual real evidence.

No. The characteristics of these transitionals are clearly preserved in the fossils.

Though life can diversify within created kinds, God created fish and fish remain fish, and God created tetrapods and tetrapods remain tetrapods.

Unless they are snakes or caecilians.

Given the apparent loose interpretations that constitute a 'transitional fossil' by secular standards,

There's a very precise definition:
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
Transitional forms

there has yet to be demonstrated transitions for Trilobites

(there are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms and complex invertebrates[/quote]

Further, fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

They didn't. Vertebrates evolved from chordates, animals with a notochord.

And the evidence shows that they evolved from their fellow deutrerostomes by paedomorphisis:

Tunicates:

Notice the tunicate larvae look very much like primitive chordates, right down to the notochord.

Also dragonflies - the highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

The Palaeodictyopteroidea.

And so on. God's word is entirely consistent with this evidence.

In the entire fossil record there is not a single unequivocal transitional form proving a causal relationship between any two kinds (such as fish > tetrapods, dinosaurs > birds, etc...).

No, that's wrong. For example, we have a complete line of transitionals between fish and tetrapods:

Source:
The Institute for Creation Research

Whatever "truth" one seeks, one will find it - just as many have found the "truth" that no god exists (the Atheist), which you and I see as the living out of 2 Peter 3:5. So philosophically it stands to reason that if we are looking for transitional forms, they will be found;

The fact that all these transitionals have been found is strong evidence for evolution. But even stronger is the fact that there are no transitionals where evolutionary theory says they should not be. No feathered mammals. No arthropods with bones. No penguins with gills.

So we know that they indicated common descent.




if we believe God created kinds from the beginning as His word says, then we will see that kinds do not become other kinds and the evidence will support both views. Creation is over; there are no new 'kinds', only a diversification of the already created kinds.[/QUOTE]

 

[The Barbarian]

That is why it is inherently unreliable evidence, leave too much to interpretation, because the moment we say the gaps are big enough as evidence of creation, you will say they look like movie frames

As I just pointed out, the key is not that so many transitional forms exist. It's that they don't exist where evolutionary theory says that they shouldn't be. So no feathered mammals. This is compelling evidence for anyone who cares about evidence.

I am just asking repeatable, verifiable testable evidences since you feel so strongly that common ancestry is a scientific fact. Is that too much to ask for?

It's easy. Transitional forms were predicted before they were found, but never where they aren't supposed to be. Genetic data has confirmed the phylogenies worked out on the basis of anatomical data. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

Homologous organs are one more demonstration of common descent. There's no good reason for humans to have knees and spines that are more suitable for a quadruped. But we evolved from quadrupeds and sothey are imperfectly evolved for bipedal life. So feet, knees, hips, and spines are prone to a lot of problems. Could have been better done from scratch, but common descent dictates otherwise.

 

[dcalling]

Maybe one of the reason for that is to troll you

OK just kidding. But as I explained again and again, it is the exact same beheavior as how software developed. We keep building faster machines, develop new ways of doing things, and we keep on adding on top of what we have, and sometimes when there are leaps in technology, we drop old things all together.

Besides, God's creation also creates, humans is only one of them, there were "sons of God", some claim are fallen angels, that created giants etc, which God wipped most out with the flood. However it appears one of Noah's sons has the polluted DNA from the nehlims.

The problem with tweaking it toward creation, in the sense of instantaneous appearance of animals, is that...

What is Gods logic behind it?

For example, why create a paleonmastodon, then destroy it, then create something like a paleomastodon but a little different, then destroy it, then create something slightly more different and destroy that, on and on and on?

Why create a theropod that has feathers and looks like a bird, then just whipe it out, then instantaneously create a bird with theropod like features, then just instantaneously whipe it out, then create a bird?

Why create fish, then wipe the fish out, then create fish that seemingly have legs and amphibian traits like an opposable neck and shoulder bones, then wipe that amphibian like fish out, then create an amphibian?

What is the logic behind it? And further, why does this logic, match genetic phylogeny? Why can a geneticist who knows nothing about fossils, make a prediction based on the DNA of amphibians, where a fossil like tiktaalik would be? Tiktaalik could have been found anywhere on the planet at any depth beneath the earth. But it wasnt anywhere, it was right where it was predicted to be based on evolution.

If instantaneous creation were the way God created life, it would appear instantaneously, it wouldnt appear as a succession of fossils.

And this is the question that, I have yet to hear any creationist (instantaneous young earth creation) answer.

 

[dcalling]

As I just pointed out, the key is not that so many transitional forms exist. It's that they don't exist where evolutionary theory says that they shouldn't be. So no feathered mammals. This is compelling evidence for anyone who cares about evidence.

I am not aware of anything in evolution theory that says there can't be feathered mammals. Mind to share a link? I don't think it have anything to do with proof, but just curious to know.

It's easy. Transitional forms were predicted before they were found, but never where they aren't supposed to be. Genetic data has confirmed the phylogenies worked out on the basis of anatomical data. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

Homologous organs are one more demonstration of common descent. There's no good reason for humans to have knees and spines that are more suitable for a quadruped. But we evolved from quadrupeds and sothey are imperfectly evolved for bipedal life. So feet, knees, hips, and spines are prone to a lot of problems. Could have been better done from scratch, but common descent dictates otherwise.

Well, it would say it is simple logic that just because you predicted something and it come true, does not make the theory right (it only means your theory is right on that spot).

Given a function(x) that satifis point (0,1), I can argue it is a line, and it indeed pass through (1,0), satify my prediction, but it can actualy be an oval. Predictions doesn't mean much, repeatable, verifiable tests are the most important ones.

 

[The Barbarian]

I am not aware of anything in evolution theory that says there can't be feathered mammals.

Evolutionary theory says apomorphic characters of other taxa don't show up in other lineages. So feathers should be only found in birds, dinosaurs, and maybe their common ancestor.

Mind to share a link? I don't think it have anything to do with proof, but just curious to know.

On the other hand, Huxley, based on anatomical data, predicted there would be feathered transitions between dinosaurs and birds. And later, these were found.

Well, it would say it is simple logic that just because you predicted something and it come true, does not make the theory right (it only means your theory is right on that spot).

Theories are judged on their ability to make successful predictions. Some other predictions:

• Transitional forms between ungulates and whales
• Transitional forms between salamanders and frogs
• Transitional forms between turtles and primitive anapsids without shells.
• Transitional forms between cockroaches and termites.
• The rise of antibiotic resistance in mammals.
• A chromosome fusion in chromosome 2 in humans
• DNA relatedness should follow the phylogenies first noted by Linnaeus (who was not an evolutionist)
• Anatomically modern humans first evolved in Africa
• Speciation should happen in small, isolated populations.
• Allele frequencies in a population should remain constant unless there is selective pressure.

There's a lot more. Do you need more?

 

[dcalling]

I already said, all those predication are only assistant evidence, for example if someone engineered a mammal with features it does not mean the end of evolution theory.

And you can't say a hypthosis is scientific fact just because some prediction come true. I already give you an example, given a function(x) that satifis point (0,1), I can argue it is a line, and it indeed pass through (1,0), satify my prediction, but it can actualy be an oval. Predictions doesn't mean much, repeatable, verifiable tests are the most important ones. I can easily have 2 similar functions that have a unlimited set of predications that come true, but one is the real and the other is fake.

Have we checked that we can simulate such tests that we can mutate genes of mammals to change their hand to wings and prove that they can occure in natural conditions? Or even simpler, how comples or probal that such mutations can happen under natural conditions?

Evolutionary theory says apomorphic characters of other taxa don't show up in other lineages. So feathers should be only found in birds, dinosaurs, and maybe their common ancestor.



On the other hand, Huxley, based on anatomical data, predicted there would be feathered transitions between dinosaurs and birds. And later, these were found.



Theories are judged on their ability to make successful predictions. Some other predictions:

• Transitional forms between ungulates and whales
• Transitional forms between salamanders and frogs
• Transitional forms between turtles and primitive anapsids without shells.
• Transitional forms between cockroaches and termites.
• The rise of antibiotic resistance in mammals.
• A chromosome fusion in chromosome 2 in humans
• DNA relatedness should follow the phylogenies first noted by Linnaeus (who was not an evolutionist)
• Anatomically modern humans first evolved in Africa
• Speciation should happen in small, isolated populations.
• Allele frequencies in a population should remain constant unless there is selective pressure.

There's a lot more. Do you need more?

 

[The Barbarian]

I already said, all those predication are only assistant evidence, for example if someone engineered a mammal with features it does not mean the end of evolution theory.

Nevertheless the more confirmed predictions a theory has, the better-confirmed it is.

And you can't say a hypthosis is scientific fact just because some prediction come true. I already give you an example, given a function(x) that satifis point (0,1), I can argue it is a line, and it indeed pass through (1,0), satify my prediction, but it can actualy be an oval. Predictions doesn't mean much, repeatable, verifiable tests are the most important ones. I can easily have 2 similar functions that have a unlimited set of predications that come true, but one is the real and the other is fake.

However, the more points you get, the closer and closer you get to the actual shape of the curve. And as you see, there are many, many points now. If you have plotted a hundred points, and every single one of them is the same distance from the origin, it becomes increasingly clear that the equation is likely to be
x 2 + y2 = r2. That would be where we are with evolution, except there are thousands of points.

Have we checked that we can simulate such tests that we can mutate genes of mammals to change their hand to wings

Nature has already done that with bats.

and prove that they can occure in natural conditions?

The probability is 1.0.

 

[NobleMouse]

No. It merely requires that it have apomorphic characters of two different groups. Hence, even creationists can identify them.

Read Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Kurt Wise CEN Tech j. , Vol. 9, no. 2 1995

No. "Transitional" is just a defined set of imaginary steps that scientists loosely classify as an "in-between" and are built upon a false set of assumptions in the case of assuming kind A evolves into kind B, hence why creationists reject them.

By definition, they are. More importantly, evolutionary theory predicted them before they were discovered. Such predictions, if confirmed, are strong evidence for the truth of the theory.

The "predictability" you speak of is like me predicting I will find sand on a beach. Over the thousands of years since creation there has been a great deal of diversification in kinds and therefore it is easy think one had predicted something will occur when the reality is that God has designed kind A and kind B and built intelligence into their respective DNA to adapt to shared environments. Nobody has predicted anything. God has created life to adapt to its environment and as such can develop similar qualities/characteristics within completely unrelated kinds.

No. The characteristics of these transitionals are clearly preserved in the fossils.

No they are not, most fossils are incomplete and damaged, hence why they get assembled incorrectly from time to time (ex. attempts to create transitional fossils of whales only to later find a more complete fossil later which dispels the incorrect construction of the earlier fossil). I've provided links before on this where scientists have discussed that their earlier set of assumptions were incorrect.

Unless they are snakes or caecilians.

They are their own kind.

There's a very precise definition:
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
Transitional forms

Based on, "hey it looks like a half-way version of the other, they must be a transitional form". You can add on as many polysyllabic terms for how these visual characteristics are identified, classified, and organized, but it boils down to imagination... especially since nobody was there to take pictures and write down detailed descriptions of their behavior - much is left to imagination and speculation.

(there are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms and complex invertebrates

Thank you for showing me varieties of the trilobite kind with no common ancestor. Lines up perfectly with the Bible.

They didn't. Vertebrates evolved from chordates, animals with a notochord.

Living fossils resembling chordates have been found - chordata kind did not become fish kind... again, presuppositional bias not based upon biblical truth.

Source: 550 Million Years of Non-Evolution?

And the evidence shows that they evolved from their fellow deutrerostomes by paedomorphisis:

Tunicates:

Notice the tunicate larvae look very much like primitive chordates, right down to the notochord.

And I quote, "... larvae look very much like..." - see, as I have been saying, all based upon speculation and visual imagination.

The Palaeodictyopteroidea.

Good, dragonfly evolved from.... the dragonfly, as created by God.

And so on. God's word is entirely consistent with this evidence.

Yes, we agree here! God's word lines up with each kind being created in the beginning. God's word does not at all align with kind A becoming kind B as it explicitly states God created each according to their kind. In other words, stating that kind A evolves into kind B is unbiblical.

No, that's wrong. For example, we have a complete line of transitionals between fish and tetrapods:

The fact that all these transitionals have been found is strong evidence for evolution. But even stronger is the fact that there are no transitionals where evolutionary theory says they should not be. No feathered mammals. No arthropods with bones. No penguins with gills.

So we know that they indicated common descent.

The fact that all of these have been labeled as transitioning from one kind into a completely different kind is actually just strong evidence that my statement in post #143 is correct:

"Whatever "truth" one seeks, one will find it - just as many have found the "truth" that no god exists (the Atheist), which you and I see as the living out of 2 Peter 3:5. So philosophically it stands to reason that if we are looking for transitional forms, they will be found; if we believe God created kinds from the beginning as His word says, then we will see that kinds do not become other kinds and the evidence will support both views. Creation is over; there are no new 'kinds', only a diversification of the already created kinds."

Transitions can be seen within a created kind; however, transitions do not move between kinds except in museums and illustrations presented in scientific academia. All kinds were created on day 3, day 5 or day 6 and they are only related in that they have a common creator, not a common ancestor.

Peace and good evening brother -

 

[Job 33:6]

Evolutionary theory says apomorphic characters of other taxa don't show up in other lineages. So feathers should be only found in birds, dinosaurs, and maybe their common ancestor.

@dcalling

This is very important because this is the bread and butter of the matching phylogenies in genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, among other fields.

This is why the theory is well supported. Because there are countless ways to disprove it, yet of the countless animals studied on earth, and the countless fossils found, none contradict it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Maybe one of the reason for that is to troll you

OK just kidding. But as I explained again and again, it is the exact same beheavior as how software developed. We keep building faster machines, develop new ways of doing things, and we keep on adding on top of what we have, and sometimes when there are leaps in technology, we drop old things all together.

Besides, God's creation also creates, humans is only one of them, there were "sons of God", some claim are fallen angels, that created giants etc, which God wipped most out with the flood. However it appears one of Noah's sons has the polluted DNA from the nehlims.

You have not responded to key points in my post.

"why does this logic, match genetic phylogeny? Why can a geneticist who knows nothing about fossils, make a prediction based on the DNA of amphibians, where a fossil like tiktaalik would be? Tiktaalik could have been found anywhere on the planet at any depth beneath the earth. But it wasnt anywhere, it was right where it was predicted to be based on evolution."

Also, we improve our software and technology because we actually have to learn to do that. We had kites before fighter jets because we didn't know any better, and had to learn how to make a jet. God already knows how to make the fighter jet from the start. So what is the logic?

Also, the fossil succession doesn't succeed in a straight line, it reverses its direction where fossils will grow big, then later will shrink in size, then grow big, then shrink in size. And it varies. It isn't like climbing up a ladder where you only go in one direction, or you only improve like software.

also, we aren't talking about something caused by a flood. we are talking about hundreds of thousands of scenarios where animals go extinct, and are replaced by modified versions of themselves.

And just for some additional food, see below for an extinction chart. 5 global floods?

Biological evolution can explain the evidence. It can explain why tiktaalik was found where it was. It explain why animals thousands of times over have disappeared and been replaced by modified versions of the same. It can explain why our genetics and comparative anatomy match the fossils succession and can explain why geneticists can predict where bones will be in the earth.

The reason the fossil succession matches our genetic phylogeny? Because the fossil succession is a product of it.

The alternative of instantaneous creation offers nothing. Nothing but a bunch of empty answers and unanswered questions.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also,

Ya know, here is the simple reality.

Fossils are a product of morphology. Morphology a product of DNA. If fossils change, logically it should follow that DNA changes (if evolution were true). And low and behold, this is what biologists see happening with mutations.

The geneticists recognize rates of genetic change and make predictions about where fossils likely are on earth based on genetic phylogeny. and low and behold, the predictions made hold true.

Either side could disprove the other at any time. We could find a fossil that contradicts genetic temporal order. Geneticists could establish a phylogeny that contradicts the succession.

But this never happens, of the thousands of studies we have performed, we never contradict one another.

 

[sfs]

I am not mistaken. I asked for a repeatable verifable test for common descent of human and apes, and chromosome 2 fusion is exactly the thing you provided.

You are mistaken. You asked for a test of common descent and The Barbarian supplied chromosome 2. You replied that the fusion was mere speculation and could not be tested. That claim is what I was responding to. We can test the hypothesis that human chromosome 2 results from a fusion. I just don't think the occurrence of that fusion is particularly good evidence for common descent.

I am not confused, as your test described above got way too many flows. Now let's assume it is some "aliens" that created life on earth, based on your steps I can create the following so called test (with your word substituted, from mutation to the aliens reused prior DNA like a library):
developing the hypothesis (change "common descent" to alien creation)
constructing the test ("interspecies differences should look like mutations in the following ways" change mutations to DNA reuse)
and applying the test to real data ("interspecies differences among primates look exactly like mutations" again change mutations to "DNA reuse")

Sorry, I wasn't completely explicit: I meant an alternative explanation that anyone would actually entertain as plausible. Every possible scientific test can always be explained by "undetectable aliens manipulated the results." Your DNA showed up on the murder victim? Undetectable aliens planted it there. Try that in court and see how far you get.

Now, do you have any possible explanation that isn't ludicrous?

And because we don't see any fossile evidence of one sort of species very gradually changing to other species

I believe I already linked to the kind of evidence you say doesn't exist: one species changing gradually into another. What was wrong with it?

Since you reject God I simple substitude God to alien so you can see clearly.

I reject God? Huh? When did that happen?

 

[NobleMouse]

The problem with tweaking it toward creation, in the sense of instantaneous appearance of animals, is that...

What is Gods logic behind it?

Hi K-BIF, I realize this is an older post and you are discussing with dcalling so this is just me sharing my thoughts. No need to respond if this becomes overly cumbersome or you feel you are having to repeat yourself.

God's logic we cannot fully know, agreed? From His word though, we do know He created all kinds and each was created with the intent to multiply and fill the earth, each according to it's kind. From this we can infer that life was to go to all reaches of the earth (1), that God made each kind (2), and each kind produces after its own kind (3). By inference, we can say that there are no kinds that were not created by God (also see John 1:1-3), and kind A does not evolve into kind B (because each produces after its own kind). Agreed that these are logical conclusions based upon what God's word states?

For example, why create a paleonmastodon, then destroy it, then create something like a paleomastodon but a little different, then destroy it, then create something slightly more different and destroy that, on and on and on?

God's word does not say how many variations He created of each kind. If we assume He created 1 for each kind, we know each kind would go into different environments as it filled the earth so each would need to adapt to the environment. Just as people who are of European descent look different than people of African descent and people of Asian descent, etc... even though we all exist at exactly the same time. One is not destroyed then another created.

Why create a theropod that has feathers and looks like a bird, then just whipe it out, then instantaneously create a bird with theropod like features, then just instantaneously whipe it out, then create a bird?

Why create fish, then wipe the fish out, then create fish that seemingly have legs and amphibian traits like an opposable neck and shoulder bones, then wipe that amphibian like fish out, then create an amphibian?

Theropods (dinosaurs) with feathers is speculative. I know you believe Archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds but it has never been unequivocally demonstrated that these alleged 'proto-feathers' are what became feathers as seen on birds. Scales are nothing like feathers and even the patterning of bird feathers follows nothing like what is seen on Archaeopteryx. Again, it is imagination that carries what is seen on Arcaeopteryx to being a fully functional complex system of feathers as exists on birds... a completely different kind from Theropods.

Same with Tiktaalik: "seemingly have legs" illustrates my point above - we can infer these are legs and served a leg-like purpose, but don't really know that. You are correct in that these ideas are not logical - a good indicator that this is not how it happened. Further, God tells us it didn't happen that way.

What is the logic behind it? And further, why does this logic, match genetic phylogeny? Why can a geneticist who knows nothing about fossils, make a prediction based on the DNA of amphibians, where a fossil like tiktaalik would be? Tiktaalik could have been found anywhere on the planet at any depth beneath the earth. But it wasnt anywhere, it was right where it was predicted to be based on evolution.

The term "genetic" in this context gives the impression of greater knowledge than is actually possessed. Genetic phylogeny is a polysyllabic term for an inferred relationship based upon physical or genetic characteristics. Since no DNA exists the assumed hundreds of millions of years of when these creatures existed, one moves on to simple physical characteristics... again, of fossils - not the same as seeing the creature actually living. So again, it comes down to imagination filling in what is believe to be transitional steps between unrelated kinds.

I think you and I agree God created DNA for all life on earth. This DNA will modify (not become more complex) to adapt to the environment (as God designed it to do) so it is not a "prediction" but simply describing the intelligence God already built into the DNA from the beginning.

If instantaneous creation were the way God created life, it would appear instantaneously, it wouldnt appear as a succession of fossils.

And this is the question that, I have yet to hear any creationist (instantaneous young earth creation) answer.

God did create life on Days 3, 5, and 6 as it is written. We do see complex life whose traces cannot be linked back to a LUCA. The paradigm you are operating under assumes that the geologic column represents billions of years based upon Lyellian uniformitarianism, who ironically studied under William Buckland (a creation scientist), but Lyell had issues with linking geological processes back to the supernatural events described in the Bible. No mincing of words here, this is rejecting God's word and in effect, rejecting God. The paradigm you operate under (uniformitarianism) has two unfalsifiable assumptions: uniformity of law and uniformity of process. Things like gradualism and naturalism are the vehicles for all geological processes even though it is clearly stated that God created the earth along with all of creation so the supernatural created the natural. The geologic column is interpreted under the uniformitarian paradigm as a successive series of events over a long time. In contrast a biblical creation scientist would see the geologic column as evidence for the global flood of Noah's time and the sequence has more to do with physical location at the time of the flood than location in time. This is why 70% of the geological column is missing more than half of the strata, why a complete column is only found less than 1% of the time, why there are polystrate fossils, and why the column is even sometimes found completely inverted.... it's not a orderly layering of time but the result of a global catastrophe, according to creationist scientists.

I suspect it isn't that you haven't received an answer from a YEC adherent to your questions before, but rather you do not accept the answers given because of the mental paradigm you operate under - even though this is what is affirmed by God's word. We can take the word of God from the one who was there and is always true and infallible or we can take the word of man who was not there, is not always true, and is fallible. As a Christian, I'm going with the word of God.

Best regards brother -