Snakes with hind legs lasted 70 million years

[The Barbarian]

If only intelligent design had such corroborating evidence. Such as bird DNA being similar to fish as they were created fully formed on the same day. Or fish DNA being similar to whale DNA as their morphological traits are similar as Marine animals.

But alas, the evidence continues to support evolution, yet again.

Or bat DNA being more similar to bird DNA, since creationists say they are the same "kind."

 

[dad]

View attachment 267748 View attachment 267749

No doubt snakes adapted/evolved after the flood. This does not mean we have any idea what the serpent in Eden looked like.

 

[dad]

Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition...

Perhaps whales adapted to land and later back to the water. Who knows? The fossil record sheds no light on that.

Scripture does mention whales in the sea of Eden though, so we know they started out as water creatures!

 

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps whales adapted to land and later back to the water. Who knows? The fossil record sheds no light on that.

All vertebrates evolved from sea creatures. The transitional forms are now abundant and well-documented, as your fellow YE creationist admits.

Scripture does mention whales in the sea of Eden though,

Eden didn't have a sea, according to God. It was a garden, and of limited area. And of course whales began to be adapted to the sea long before there were humans at all.

 

[dad]

All vertebrates evolved from sea creatures.

All sea creatures were created the same week as man and other creatures.

The transitional forms are now abundant and well-documented, as your fellow YE creationist admits.

What started out as a created kind and what did not you have no way of knowing actually. What adapted when and why from what you do not know! You have strung together a belief based on hopelessly partial info.

Eden didn't have a sea, according to God.

Well, there was a sea right there because whales and other sea creatures were in it actually! I do not envision the sea as 'in'' the garden, but the garden as near the sea! So we could well call it the sea of Eden. You know like the Japan sea, or the Indian Ocean, or the China sea?

And of course whales began to be adapted to the sea long before there were humans at all.

I think you have misread the evidence, sorry.

 

[The Barbarian]

All sea creatures were created the same week as man and other creatures.

No, that's neither Biblical nor consistent with the evidence.

What started out as a created kind and what did not you have no way of knowing actually. What adapted when and why from what you do not know! You have strung together a belief based on hopelessly partial info.

Your fellow YE creationist doesn't think so:
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. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Well, there was a sea right there because whales and other sea creatures were in it actually!

Yet another "just so" story, not found in the Bible.

 

[dad]

No, that's neither Biblical

Not sure what point you could be trying to make denying the six-day creation, and claiming any other view is not 'biblical'??

nor consistent with the evidence.

Yes it is.

Your fellow YE creationist doesn't think so:
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.

In plain English, what creature who lived when shows strong evidence of what in your mind?

Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

There is no traditional creation theory. There is belief in creation as told in Scripture. As for the fossil record, there is no need to 'predict' what sorts of creatures that would not be able to leave fossil remains in that former nature and time. We simply look at what creatures are there and observe that these are the ones that could leave remains!

Yet another "just so" story, not found in the Bible.

Not sure what aspect of God created everything that moves in the sea you think is a just-so story? Or are you referring to personal incredulity about whether the sea was close to Eden?

 

[The Barbarian]

In plain English, what creature who lived when shows strong evidence of what in your mind?

Let's see what your fellow YE creationist has in mind that he thinks is strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence 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. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

There is no traditional creation theory.

Your fellow YE creationist says there is. You guys might want to sort out what you believe, and get back to us when you know?

There is belief in creation as told in Scripture.

Which rules out YE creationism, but not all forms of creationism.

As for the fossil record, there is no need to 'predict' what sorts of creatures that would not be able to leave fossil remains in that former nature and time.

As Kurt Wise admits, the existence of all these predicted transitionals is strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. But even more convincing,there's never a transitional where there shouldn't be any.

Not sure what aspect of God created everything that moves in the sea you think is a just-so story?

The part where creationists changed it to make the "yom" of creation into literal 24-hour days.

Or are you referring to personal incredulity about whether the sea was close to Eden?

That's the part creationists just make up, with no scriptural support whatever.

 

[dad]

Your fellow YE creationist says there is. You guys might want to sort out what you believe, and get back to us when you know?

Not sure what point you are trying to make. If all you are discussing are adaptations in recent history, that would not even pertain to TOE in any real way. If you are referring to little creatures that sort of looks like a reptile or something in the fossil record, that is irrelevant. Name the exact deposit such a fossil was found in, how it is dated and the reasons why it is assumed that the creature must be a result of evolution!
As for the creationist you cite, sounds like he likes to sound smart, or think he does.

Which rules out YE creationism, but not all forms of creationism.

I rule out anything that was not as Genesis and the rest of the bible says.

As Kurt Wise admits, the existence of all these predicted transitionals is strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

Who cares?? When you know, get back to us! Do you take into account the originally created animals? Or do you assume every fossil you see in the extremely partial fossil record must have come to exist only by the process of evolving? Your case so far is a comedy of errors blanketing a bed of beliefs.

But even more convincing,there's never a transitional where there shouldn't be any.

Why should there be considering creation is real? You thought I expected transitional fossils of some sort in the fossil record?

The part where creationists changed it to make the "yom" of creation into literal 24-hour days.

The clear context demands that morning and evening not be millions of imaginary years. The clear context demands Adam did not sit around for millions of years with no female. Clear context demand that plants created on day three not be sitting around millions of years before the sun was created. Context requires that a garden lanted on day three did not take millions of years to grow before Adam could eat the fruit. Clear belief in Scripture asks that we place His word over the word of man on what happened in the beginning.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not sure what point you are trying to make. If all you are discussing are adaptations in recent history, that would not even pertain to TOE in any real way.

You learned earlier, that it does. Remember what the scientific definition of evolution is? That's why it applies to observed evolution as well as evolution documented in the fossil record.

Name the exact deposit such a fossil was found in, how it is dated and the reasons why it is assumed that the creature must be a result of evolution!

Your fellow YE creationist gave you numerous examples. Use them.

I rule out anything that was not as Genesis and the rest of the bible says.

Then you rule out YE creationism. As you know, the text itself says that the "days" are not literal ones, and of course it rules out the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo."

The clear context demands that morning and evening not be millions of imaginary years.

The clear context demands that they aren't about time at all.

 

[dad]

You learned earlier, that it does. Remember what the scientific definition of evolution is? That's why it applies to observed evolution as well as evolution documented in the fossil record.

Name a specific example of something you think must have existed only because it evolved from something else in the fossil record. I can look at that.

Your fellow YE creationist gave you numerous examples. Use them.

Ok, so we have the rodent Purgatorius29


If my search was correct that was in the Paleocene.

"time of the Paleogene Period, spanning the interval between 66 million and 56 million years ago."

Paleocene Epoch | geochronology

If the flood was approx 65 million years ago in science time, that would place the rodent fossil around the time of, or shortly after the flood. Likely in the former nature also.
So I think there is an example your source used. So tell us about the fossil, and why you think it had to be a result of evolution exactly.

Then you rule out YE creationism. As you know, the text itself says that the "days" are not literal ones, and of course it rules out the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo."

No. I know no such thing. Can you show us where an evening or morning is millions of years in the bible?

The clear context demands that they aren't about time at all.

Nonsense. There was never a morning, day, or evening that involved no time. Nor was there a day when plants were created that was anything but a day, because the sun was created days later, and plants cannot live without the sun for millions of years.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You learned earlier, that it does. Remember what the scientific definition of evolution is? That's why it applies to observed evolution as well as evolution documented in the fossil record.

Name a specific example of something you think must have existed only because it evolved from something else in the fossil record.

Your fellow YE creationist mentions humans, whales, horses, and many others. Pick one and see why he says these are strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

I can look at that.

Yes, but we know you won't.

Ok, so we have the rodent Purgatorius29 If my search was correct that was in the Paleocene.

If the flood was approx 65 million years ago in science time

Bad assumption; no humans then. And the flood, if it isn't just an allegory (and no one knows for sure, but God) occurred less than 100,000 years ago, from the evidence.

that would place the rodent fossil around the time of, or shortly after the flood. Likely in the former nature also.

Nope. Nice try, though.

So I think there is an example your source used. So tell us about the fossil, and why you think it had to be a result of evolution exactly.

Remember what evolution is. There are a series of transitionals in that line, each one a bit later, and a bit different than the previous one. Descent with modification, as Darwin wrote. This is why even honest creationists say that it's very good evidence for evolution.

Then you rule out YE creationism. As you know, the text itself says that the "days" are not literal ones, and of course it rules out the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo."

No. I know no such thing.

You don't want to accept it, but there it is; the earth brought forth living things. They were not created ex nihilo, according to God. Why not just accept it His way and let it go?

Can you show us where an evening or morning is millions of years in the bible?

I can't show you where it's any amount of time at all. The "days" are representing different categories of creation, not periods of time.

Nonsense. There was never a morning, day, or evening that involved no time.

The Israelites would disagree with you. Because Hebrew has so few words, words have to serve more than one purpose. So "yom" can mean "always" or "forever" or "in my day", or a host of other things. You've ignored the plain meaning in the text and added your own ideas to make it more acceptable to you.

Nor was there a day when plants were created that was anything but a day, because the sun was created days later, and plants cannot live without the sun for millions of years.

You're still trying to force God's word into your own wishes, and so you're confused as to how plants could be without a sun. If you just take it God's way, those problems go away.

 

[dad]

Barbarian observes:
You learned earlier, that it does. Remember what the scientific definition of evolution is? That's why it applies to observed evolution as well as evolution documented in the fossil record.

The issue here is the TOE. Now as for the flood era rat that died, you were supposed to show us how that had to have existed only because of evolution.

Your fellow YE creationist mentions humans, whales, horses, and many others. Pick one and see why he says these are strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

I randomly did pick one, the rodent that I posted.

Bad assumption; no humans then.

Not really asking for your opinion on that.

And the flood, if it isn't just an allegory (and no one knows for sure, but God) occurred less than 100,000 years ago, from the evidence.

Correct. But no dating is possible from ratios of isotopes. That assumes nature was the same. If you want to use that belief, it must first be supported.
No dates past about 3500 to 4000 years are accurate, and the error curve is sky high after that. So, that diversion attempt aside, show us how the little rat could have existed no other way but by evolving?

Remember what evolution is. There are a series of transitionals in that line, each one a bit later, and a bit different than the previous one.

Total nonsense then, OK. The lne of life cannot be gotten by the fossil record if most animals and man could not leave remains. Basically, for the early record about all you are saying is 'of the few creatures on earth that COULD leave fossil remains, we find that there are some similarities in a few of them'! Ridiculous.

Descent with modification, as Darwin wrote. This is why even honest creationists say that it's very good evidence for evolution.

I theory, perhaps some would find merit in that concept. In reality, you need to show creatures that exist only because of a lot of previous modification.

Then you rule out YE creationism. As you know, the text itself says that the "days" are not literal ones, and of course it rules out the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo."

Not sure why you make up absolute foolishness and try to pretend I know or care about it, or agree.

You don't want to accept it, but there it is; the earth brought forth living things. They were not created ex nihilo, according to God. Why not just accept it His way and let it go?

By that token, Adam and Eve were not created because one came from dust and the other bone! Again, ridiculous.

I can't show you where it's any amount of time at all. The "days" are representing different categories of creation, not periods of time.

You are welcome to that little interpretation. The rest of the bible does not support it as does not Genesis though. You might as well say Jesus was dead for three categories rather than periods of time!

The Israelites would disagree with you. Because Hebrew has so few words, words have to serve more than one purpose. So "yom" can mean "always" or "forever" or "in my day", or a host of other things. You've ignored the plain meaning in the text and added your own ideas to make it more acceptable to you.

Let's grab an example from the bible about creation.

Ps 148:5 - Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.Does this sound like a categorization!?

You're still trying to force God's word into your own wishes, and so you're confused as to how plants could be without a sun. If you just take it God's way, those problems go away.

OK, I do not take kindly to people suggesting that their minority out of context opinion and interpretation of Scripture is the only way. When I see someone trying to use this in a passionate defense and apologetics attempt for TOE, while at the same time insulting believers, I take that as words from the defeated.

 

[The Barbarian]

You don't want to accept it, but there it is; the earth brought forth living things. They were not created ex nihilo, according to God. Why not just accept it His way and let it go?

By that token, Adam and Eve were not created because one came from dust and the other bone!

You're getting confused again. Creation generally isn't ex nihilo. You, for example, are a creature of God, but you body was not created ex nihilo. You've confused.

Again, ridiculous.

No. Just confused.

 

[dad]

You don't want to accept it, but there it is; the earth brought forth living things. They were not created ex nihilo, according to God. Why not just accept it His way and let it go?

No way. God created! In some cases that involved using the earth in the creation, such as using dust to make Adam's body. However, there was a lot more to it, as He Personally breathed life into him. You absolutely cannot take this to mean that the earth all by itself slowly created!

You're getting confused again. Creation generally isn't ex nihilo. You, for example, are a creature of God, but you body was not created ex nihilo. You've confused.

I am not here to question God or how He chooses to create various things that He created.

 

[The Barbarian]

No way. God created!

He created all things. Just not ex nihilo in many cases. That is the YE creationist error.

In some cases that involved using the earth in the creation, such as using dust to make Adam's body. However, there was a lot more to it, as He Personally breathed life into him.

Which is the difference between man and the other animals. We are also brought forth by the earth, but we get our souls (which is who we are) immediately from God.

 

[dad]

He created all things. Just not ex nihilo in many cases. That is the YE creationist error.

No it is not. How He created doesn't matter. The issue is whether He really created as Genesis says. Example: Eve was created from a bone of the man. If I recall you do not believe that, right?

Which is the difference between man and the other animals. We are also brought forth by the earth, but we get our souls (which is who we are) immediately from God.

False. We were not brought from the earth, He formed and fashioned us.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
He created all things. Just not ex nihilo in many cases. That is the YE creationist error.

No it is not.

Yes, it is. As you know, YE creationism says that life was created ex nihilo, and of course, it wasn't.

How He created doesn't matter.

You guys will have to work that out among yourselves. I'm just pointing out your error.

We were not brought from the earth

God says we were:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

 

[dad]

Barbarian observes:
He created all things. Just not ex nihilo in many cases. That is the YE creationist error.



Yes, it is. As you know, YE creationism says that life was created ex nihilo, and of course, it wasn't

Most yecs read Genesis. It says how Eve was created. Do you believe that?

You guys will have to work that out among yourselves. I'm just pointing out your error.

The bible speaks fine, thanks.

God says we were:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

See the word formed? Look it up. That means He did it. Not that the ground evolved man or something that later resulted in man.

 

[The Barbarian]

Most yecs read Genesis. It says how Eve was created. Do you believe that?

Of course. It's a parable, like the rest of the story. The text itself says that; the DNA in Adam's body would have made Eve a male, not a female. So we know it wasn't a literal cloning.

He created all things. Just not ex nihilo in many cases. That is the YE creationist error.
Yes, it is. As you know, YE creationism says that life was created ex nihilo, and of course, it wasn't

Genesis rules out humans being created ex nihilo:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

See the word formed?

Yep. Means "something unformed was taken and formed"; rules out ex nihilo creation. Look it up. That means He did it from existing matter. Not that he did it ex nihilo; He made man from something already created that later resulted in man.