Well preserved Archaeopteryx fossil shows link between birds and dinosaurs.

[AV1611VET]

I don't think it does. If you think it does, maybe you could explain how.

I'm asking you.

We're discussing the creation week with emphasis on macroevolution, and you chime in with, "as long as it leads you to Christ."

Show me how please.

 

[BCP1928]

And what is my interpretation of the Bible?

(I know ... "off-putting" ... )

It's enough that you tell people it was originally written in Jacobean English.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm asking you.

We're discussing the creation week with emphasis on macroevolution, and you chime in with, "as long as it leads you to Christ."

Show me how please.

You have an unusual take on Genesis, and the Bible as a whole. If you think your view of it helps you to Christ, then good for you. But it is not necessary for anyone else, and it is off-putting to a lot of people. I don't know why you think you need such a view, but if you think you do then you had better keep it. I would hate for someone to talk you out of 1611ism and then find that you had lost your faith because of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

And your prime directive is "Under no circumstances is my interpretation of the Bible to be contradicted."

You know, I could report you for this, but I won't.

As we've discussed before, you aren't going to hell for denying common descent.

No kidding?

If you make that denial into an idol and insist that everyone else believe it, that could be an issue.

Okay ... I won't.

But you'd never know it, if I won't, would you?

Hint: I never did in the first place.

But creationists, absent that issue, are no less Christian than the rest of us.

Do you know the difference between initial sanctification and progressive sanctification?

Hopefully, it's just an error.

Would you know it, if it wasn't?

There are lots of things Christians disagree on, without leaving His side.

Ya ... the difference is logged as "progressive sanctification."

I can get saved, then believe my kind came from the seminal fluid of a race of apes.

I'll still die and go to Heaven, but when awards are handed out there ... well ...

It's directly observed happening around us.

No, it isn't.

You're confusing microevolution with macroevolution.

(But don't let that stop you. You're on a roll. )

I think you have confused macroevolution (speciation) with common descent.

But there's a good reason why believers accept common descent.

They are made to.

No choice.

Many honest YE creationists admit that the evidence strongly supports common descent.

One can be honest ... and honestly wrong, can't they?

 

[The Barbarian]

How does Genesis 1 lead me to Christ?

Not very much in Genesis 1. Only God's reference to Himself as plural. The key is in Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Hence, the Son of man (descended from the woman) who Isaiah predicts will be "bruised" for our sins. The suffering servant.
Isaiahs 53:5 But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.

The actual announcement from God to us:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isaiahs 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth. 8 He was taken away from distress, and from judgment: who shall declare his generation? because he is cut off out of the land of the living: for the wickedness of my people have I struck him. 9 And he shall give the ungodly for his burial, and the rich for his death: because he hath done no iniquity, neither was there deceit in his mouth. 10 And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.

11 Because his soul hath laboured, he shall see and be filled: by his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I distribute to him very many, and he shall divide the spoils of the strong, because he hath delivered his soul unto death, and was reputed with the wicked: and he hath borne the sins of many, and hath prayed for the transgressors.

 

[AV1611VET]

To try and get this thread back on track: @Sir Joseph could you further expand on the latter sentence, since as it stands, it's really just that bit nonsensical..

2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is your senility acting up if you can't remember your own interpretation of the Bible?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

AV, your insistence on thinking that you're actually answering for other people is a stale as the bread I put into the bin this morning.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's enough that you tell people it was originally written in Jacobean English.

The Bible?

Or just the first ten chapters?

 

[AV1611VET]

You have an unusual take on Genesis, and the Bible as a whole.

I'll ask you again:

Where did I ever say Genesis 1 leads one to Christ?

The Protevangelium doesn't even come until Genesis 3.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not very much in Genesis 1.

Good.

Now convince BCP of this.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, your insistence on thinking that you're actually answering for other people is a stale as the bread I put into the bin this morning.

So I take it if he answers the same way, you'll still not understand?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So I take it if he answers the say way, you'll still not understand?

We won't know until he answers.

Until then, show some restraint and don't assume to answer for other people. It's very arrogant.

 

[AV1611VET]

We won't know until he answers.

So if he answers the same way, then you'll know why???

What? does it take both of us to give you the answer?

Until then, show some restraint and don't assume to answer for other people. It's very arrogant.

You have to recognize the answer first.

If I ask you what 5 and 4 are, and dlamberth says "9", why should I care who answered it?

(Assuming I recognized "9" as the answer though.)

 

[BCP1928]

I'll ask you again:

Where did I ever say Genesis 1 leads one to Christ?

The Protevangelium doesn't even come until Genesis 3.

I don't know that you ever said that. If you don't need to believe what is in Gen 1 have faith in Christ, why do you have to believe it is written in Jacobean English?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So if he answers the same way, then you'll know why???

What? does it take both of us to give you the answer?

Why does it bother you so much that when I ask someone for their answer that I won't accept your answer? You're not him, so you don't know what he'll give as answer.

Arrogance, thy name is AV1611VET.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does it bother you so much that when I ask someone for their answer that I won't accept your answer? You're not him, so you don't know what he'll give as answer.

Arrogance, thy name is AV1611VET.

You've never answered for someone else here?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You've never answered for someone else here?

Probably, very likely. Never claimed to be perfect.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ya ... the difference is logged as "progressive sanctification."

I can get saved, then believe my kind came from the seminal fluid of a race of apes.

We are, after all, a species of apes. A single race, now. But how our bodies were produced is of no matter whatever. We are His because He directly gives us an immortal soul.

I'll still die and go to Heaven, but when awards are handed out there ... well ...

I doubt if you'll be penalized for not approving of the way He created things. And since we'll be perfectly happy in Heaven, according to God,
Psalms16:15 But as for me, I will appear before thy sight in justice: I shall be satisfied when thy glory shall appear.
the rewards will be perfectly attuned to my needs to give me complete satisfaction and joy. If someone has a greater mansion than I, all envy and vanity will be gone from my heart, and I will not be unhappy in the least.

 

[Sir Joseph]

This is most definitely not an "excellent article".

Let's take a claim at random:

"L.D. Martin and co-workers have established that neither the teeth nor the ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod dinosaurs…the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later) toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of dinosaurs."

This is not what Martin et al "established" in 1980, its something they argued for. However, later fossil evidence has shown them to be incorrect. At least half a dozen new Archaeopteryx fossils have been formally described since 1980.

The morphology of the coracoid and that of the proximal tarsals is, for the first time, clearly visible in the new specimen. The new specimen demonstrates the presence of a hyperextendible second toe in Archaeopteryx. This feature is otherwise known only from the basal avian Rahonavis and deinonychosaurs (Dromaeosauridae and Troodontidae), and its presence in Archaeopteryx provides additional evidence for a close relationship between deinonychosaurs and avians. The new specimen also shows that the first toe of Archaeopteryx was not fully reversed but spread medially, supporting previous assumptions that Archaeopteryx was only facultatively arboreal.​

​

https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-abstract/149/1/97/2630838?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=true

The above paper shows evidence of the Archaeopteryx ankle (tarsals) having features of both ancestor and descendent populations - a classic mosiac or "transitional" species.

Similarly this paper shows close homologies between the tarsals in Archaeopteryx and non-avian therapod dinosaurs. In fact, it essentially disproves the hypothesis of Martin et al (1980)

​

The present study, based on more extensive material, reveals that, although the carinate process becomes associated with the calcaneum during later development, there is evidence that it originates as a cartilaginous process from the astragalus and is therefore homologous with the ratite condition. As the avian tarsus is homologous with that of theropods, and of Archaeopteryx, it may be used to support a close phylogenetic relationship among them.​

​

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230294728_Tarsal_development_in_birds_Evidence_for_homology_with_the_theropod_condition

Now, we might be generous and say that since Mr Gish was writing in 1998 that he couldn't have known this. However, there were literally several dozen papers describing Archaeopteryx ankle bones available that he could have looked up at this point that describe homologous structures with therapod dinosaurs. There was, starting roughly in 1988, a massive re-appraisal of Archaeopteryx and other maniraptoran dinosaurs, thanks to the discoveries coming out of China at the time. We now have fossils representing more than a dozen groups of avian dinosaurs in the Avialae clade.


Duane Gish, as is standard practice for creationists, selectively quoting here to make uncertainties in the sciences appear like counter-factuals. It's dishonest, it's anti-intellectual and it relies on the audience not having the time, intellect, resources, curiosity or motivation to actually investigate what is being argued.

​

Allow me to compliment your diligent work without agreeing with your conclusions.