Where did Whales come from?

[Job 33:6]

The point slipped by you.

What point is that?

 

[Kenny'sID]

What point is that?

It makes no difference at all whether or not dogs existed back then, it could be any species of animal from any time. When they breed as dogs are bred today, they make animals with similarities that can be laid side by side and claimed one evolved from the other. Sure, there may not be as many breeds/types in the fossil record as there are dogs that were bred purposely and often today, but nature will interbreed.

Take your picture here for instance, what's to stop those "transitionals" from being slightly different variations due to breeding that all lived in the same time period? Or even flukes, for instance how a midget might be born out of the blue...are they going to take those fossils and put them up against those of a small man, a normal size man and a large man and say they are transitional/one evolved from the other, when that is absolutely not the case?

Explain to me how that isn't exactly what they are doing?

This is correct, but why would that transition need to happen in ambulocetus? The answer is, it doesn't.

http://www.otago.ac.nz/geology/otago123425.jpg

 

[Job 33:6]

It makes no difference at all whether or not dogs existed back then, it could be any species of animal from any time. When they breed as dogs are bred today, they make animals with similarities that can be laid side by side and claimed one evolved from the other. Sure, there may not be as many breeds/types in the fossil record as there are dogs that were bred purposely and often today, but nature will interbreed.

Take your picture here for instance, what's to stop those "transitionals" from being slightly different variations due to breeding that all lived in the same time period? Or even flukes, for instance how a midget might be born out of the blue...are they going to take those fossils and put them up against those of a small man, a normal size man and a large man and say they are transitional/one evolved from the other, when that is absolutely not the case?

Explain to me how that isn't exactly what they are doing?

This is absolutely taken into consideration. For example, take the comparison of torosaurus and triceratops. Currently, people are unsure of if the two are the same species (maybe ones male and the others female? Maybe one is old while the other young?) or if theyre different.

The difference though between torosaurus and triceratops and say...a fish and a mammal, is that the fossil succession...

well firstly, when you find a fossil, you cant just stick it anywhere you like in a succession. Because if you do that, people are going to come after you (true story, it happens). Your fossil succession is truly grounded in a geologic succession. It is the geology that defines the sequence. And anyone here is free to challenge that if they would like to, I am here to speak on that as well if people want to.

But anyway...

Beyond being grounded in geology (which isn't the case with dogs), the fossil succession spans a far greater morphological span, than anything seen in dogs. The fossil succession encompasses everything from worms, all the way to complex mammals and birds. Dogs, if they were to all be buried and fossilized, would only span...dogs. Big dogs, little dogs. A dog can only be bred so differently from a previous dog, before it becomes a non dog. The fossil succession spans genus and order and family etc. It spans great morphological changes that are far greater than anything seen in dogs. This is because dogs have only been bred for a handful of generations. Whereas complex life on earth has been "bred" for hundreds of millions of years.

Sorry for repeating myself in that last paragraph, just trying to be clear.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The fossil succession spans genus and order and family etc.

Fact or supposition?

 

[Job 33:6]

Fact or supposition?

As far as I've seen with my own eyes, fact. I've studied geology for over a decade. I've seen countless fossils, still in their respective rock. I've studied countless rock formations, I've worked with many independent researchers of multiple fields. And it all points toward the fossil succession being fact.

I actually have family and close friends who either have, or still doubt the existence of things like the fossil succession. Typically though they don't go out of their way to study rocks (most people don't care much about rocks), and just couldn't know what's out there.

Textbooks can only show so much in their depictions and can only explain so much in the confines of their bindings. The internet too is limited, in that, you cant study rocks over the internet. Its like taking an online class for something related to the outdoors. It really just doesn't do it justice.

So, I am not mad at them or anything like that. For people coming from a theological background, and people coming from the church, the fossil succession and more broadly, the theory of evolution is a pretty hot topic that gets people fueled up. And it is no surprise to me that there is that friction and opposition from within the church.

But if I were to guess. If more people did go out and were to invest in a sledge hammer, a couple rock hammers, a bottle of water and a peanut butter sandwich...

More people would, without a doubt, accept the existence of the fossil succession. Maybe not everyone but surely most would. I couldn't imagine the conflict would go on long before people started looking at Gods creation in new ways.

 

[Radrook]

If this is what it is truly about, concern that Jesus descended from a fish, then you should just say that up front. You should not attempt to talk poorly of other peoples work to get there, at least if you aren't familiar with it.

I love Christ, with all my heart. And I simultaneously work hard as a geologist. And in that, I am always, finding fossils and cross checking them with what is commonly known as the fossil succession. It is a real thing, and it pains me that my own brothers and sisters in Christ, oppose my work. Even in scenarios where they have never seen it. And I know the same goes for biologists and archaeologists and astronomers. If you do not walk in our shoes, you truly can only see the tip of the iceberg. And its hard to explain just how much is known, collectively in science, because its just so much information that it honestly takes years to gather.

Sometimes I have trouble trying to describe this to my wife, and I see her every day. There is just so much depth that we talk and talk and talk, and she still is only at the tip of the iceberg.

regardless,

This shouldn't be a discussion about God, because God, as our creator stands above it all. People are afraid to view the true beauty in His creation, out of fear that it opposes Him.

It is tough, because we grew up, being told certain things about how creation occurred. But if you saw Gods creation, and you studied it with your own hands and eyes and nose and tongue (rocks don't make much noise so I wont say ears), I believe most of those who doubt, would find something infinitely more beautiful than their original vague and unclear views of how creation unfolded.

Well, I guess we simply disagree on the subject. My apologies if I wasted your time. It was not my intention. God bless.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It is a real thing, and it pains me that my own brothers and sisters in Christ, oppose my work.

Just as it pains us to see someone seeing something that may not be there. Something that could be explained in so m any different ways seems to always end up going the direction of a predetermined notion.

 

[Radrook]

This is absolutely taken into consideration. For example, take the comparison of torosaurus and triceratops. Currently, people are unsure of if the two are the same species (maybe ones male and the others female? Maybe one is old while the other young?) or if theyre different.

The difference though between torosaurus and triceratops and say...a fish and a mammal, is that the fossil succession...

well firstly, when you find a fossil, you cant just stick it anywhere you like in a succession. Because if you do that, people are going to come after you (true story, it happens). Your fossil succession is truly grounded in a geologic succession. It is the geology that defines the sequence. And anyone here is free to challenge that if they would like to, I am here to speak on that as well if people want to.

But anyway...

Beyond being grounded in geology (which isn't the case with dogs), the fossil succession spans a far greater morphological span, than anything seen in dogs. The fossil succession encompasses everything from worms, all the way to complex mammals and birds. Dogs, if they were to all be buried and fossilized, would only span...dogs. Big dogs, little dogs. A dog can only be bred so differently from a previous dog, before it becomes a non dog. The fossil succession spans genus and order and family etc. It spans great morphological changes that are far greater than anything seen in dogs. This is because dogs have only been bred for a handful of generations. Whereas complex life on earth has been "bred" for hundreds of millions of years.

Sorry for repeating myself in that last paragraph, just trying to be clear.

The one in need of prayers is the one saying that Jesus came from a fish and not the one who believes what the Bible tells us. So don't waste prayers on me. Instead I suggest prayer for the one or those who really need it so that they see that such a teaching, which blatantly contradicts the Bible and would make our Lord and Savior a descendent of a beast, is a blasphemy.

 

[Job 33:6]

The one in need of prayers is the one saying that Jesus came from a fish and not the one who believes what the Bible tells us. So don't waste prayers on me. Instead I suggest prayer for the one or those who really need it so that they see that such a teaching, which blatantly contradicts the Bible and would make our Lord and Savior a descendent of a beast, is a blasphemy.

You only fear and deny what you are, because you cannot see the beauty in its design and creation.

Is it greatly disturbing at first? Of course. Traumatizing. Many intellectual walls stand in the way of accepting something different that what we grew up having accepted.

But creation, speaks for itself. Those who study it know. Back in the 1800s, no scientist accepted things like an old earth or the theory of evolution. The founders who discovered these things were entering into a world where people would accuse them of blasphemy. These people, even those who were followers of Christ, were shunned. Criticized. Threatened. James Hutton, author of theory of the earth, lived through this in the late 1700s.

But here we are, more than 200 years later, after Hutton's publications, and his work stands stronger and more accepted than ever.

He understood Gods creation, and wasnt afraid to introduce his thoughts to the world.

You accuse me of blasphemy, but as a geologist, I know that I am not misrepresenting Gods creation of an old earth.

 

[Job 33:6]

Even Darwins work, his name, is only known because of the work done by Christians that predated him. The founding fathers of modern science, even those who were Christian, were heavily criticized back then, and we still are today. Only now, we have the majority, by far. And perhaps it is the other side of the table, that needs self reflection.

God is capable of all things. He is all powerful, knowledgeable and capable. His actions and design in creation are so amazing, that even his own followers may not understand or accept it, due to its great complexity.

And even a fish, is an amazingly complex and beautiful creation of our Lord. It is not simply a "beast". You are spitting on the very creation of God.

 

[Job 33:6]

A couple quotes from James Hutton's introduction in the theory of earth.

"The form and constitution of the mass are not more evidently calculated for the purpose of this earth as a habitable world, than are the various substances of which that complicated body is composed. Soft and hard parts variously combine to form a medium consistence, adapted to the use of plants and animals; wet and dry are properly mixed for nutrition, or the support of those growing bodies; and hot and cold produce a temperature or climate no less required than a soil: Insomuch, that there is not any particular, respecting either the qualities of the materials, or the construction of the machine, more obvious to our perception, than are the presence and efficacy of design and intelligence in the power that conducts the work."

"It is not only by seeing those general operations of the globe which depend upon its particular construction as a machine, but also by perceiving how far the particulars, in the construction of that machine, depend upon the general operations of the globe, that we are enabled to understand the constitution of this earth as a thing formed by design. We shall thus also be led to acknowledge and order, not unworthy of divine wisdom, in a subject which, in another view, has appeared as the work of chance, or as absolute disorder and confusion."

Hutton knew that his research would be opposed by the church, but he also knew that his research was only providing a description of Gods creation. So, despite the controversy and concern of reprisal, he still went forward out of Gods will.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Only now, we have the majority, by far. And perhaps it is the other side of the table, that needs self reflection.

Or perhaps it's near the end of this era and what you teach is part of the falling away, and those you say need reflection, are the ones who were immovable, and held on to the actual truth.

What you say is a kin to telling those who refuse to, for instance, live in fornication, that they need to wake up and get with the program. The easing us into believing that's ok to do, started with the same resistance you mention, and now it has been made acceptable, just as you mention.

Because something has been pushed into being ok over time, is not a defense that something is ok, it only means if pushed at us hard enough and long enough, some people will give in, especially when it's something they want to believe.

 

[Job 33:6]

Or perhaps it's near the end of this era and what you teach is part of the falling away, and those you say need reflection, are the ones who were immovable, and held on to the actual truth.

What you say is a kin to telling those who refuse to, for instance, live in fornication, that they need to wake up and get with the program. The easing us into believing that's ok to do, started with the same resistance you mention, and now it has been made acceptable, just as you mention.

Because something has been pushed into being ok over time, is not a defense that something is ok, it only means if pushed at us hard enough and long enough, some people will give in, especially when it's something they want to believe.

Accepting science, is not akin to sexual immorality. When youre old and drying up, and we are still progressing without you, remember this post.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Accepting science, is not akin to sexual immorality.

It's scientists that use dishonest twists like that, that concern me. They can make anything out to be anything they want and they often do.

What do you mean "accepting science", science has nothing to accept. The term science that might make something sound somehow important or irrefutable to some, is no more than opinion/conclusions of people. So in reality, you aren't accepting science but what people claim things in the natural world mean.

 

[Job 33:6]

It's scientists that use dishonest twists like that, that concern me. They can make anything out to be anything they want and they often do.

What do you mean "accepting science", science has nothing to accept. The term science that might make something sound somehow important or irrefutable to some, is no more than opinion/conclusions of people. So in reality, you aren't accepting science but what people claim things in the natural world mean.

Science is about more than just opinionated claims. If they were mere claims and opinions, nobody would be planning a trip to mars. I will not say all concepts, but many concepts, or most concepts in modern geology and biology today, are truthful reflections of Gods creation.

 

[Papias]

Instead I suggest prayer for the one or those who really need it so that they see that such a teaching, which blatantly contradicts the Bible ...........

The Bible is fully compatible with evolution, even more than it is with the idea of a spherical earth. The creation account is clearly speaking to the people of the ancient world, and not meant to be taken literally. After all, it describes a flat earth, under a hard dome, under water, and the fact that it was not literal was recognized by many early Christians, including St. Augustine and Origen.

More importantly, it's blasphemy to deny the evolution of the whale, because to claim it was designed that way says that God is a really stupid designer. First of all, what kind of designer would make a fully aquatic creature unable to breathe water? That's like driving a car into the lake. Why would a god put so many transitional fossils showing a clear and obvious transition from a land creature into a whale into the earth? Why have whales grow teeth in the womb before re-absorbing them before birth? Why have genes for making hair that are then turned off? Why have DNA that shows a nested hierarchy, and ancestry from land animals, in nearly every cell of the whale? Why have whales form legs before birth, which also are reabsorbed before birth?

And it goes on and on. To suggest that whales didn't descend from land animals seems to be calling God a liar for making so many different lines of clear evidence of that, in addition to the brain-dead design.

...which blatantly contradicts the Bible and would make our Lord and Savior a descendent of a beast, is a blasphemy.

But the Bible does actually say that people are beasts - and we both (I hope) agree that Jesus was fully human.

Ecl 3:18 -
I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals.

They can make anything out to be anything they want and they often do.

Scientists have helped us see more and more of God's creation, and most scientists are believers in God. I don't see why you have such distrust of the many Christians who give God the glory. After all, the biggest institution teaching evolution is explicitly Christian, and most who accept the reality of evolution in the United States are Christians.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[JacksBratt]

Sorry, but I must deny your formal request which includes a false accusation against me. I've told you before that I use the KJV since it is less altered and paraphrased that your version. I also posted Gen 1:21 from the KJV which obviously prompted your disagreement. Here it is again:

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

As everyone can now see, it's not me being dishonest as you posted.

Lets "bold" the complete thought in this text that you lean so heavily on, shall we?

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

So, now we see what every living creature the writer is talking about... every living creature which is in the waters.

This passage is talking about the living things in the waters.

The text "which the waters brought forth abundantly" describes the previous text "every living creature that moveth"

It places the "every living creature" in the water.

It precedes and does not involve the land animals.

 

[JacksBratt]

What point is that?

The point he is making has nothing to do with there being fossils of all the different types of dogs.

The point is that if you took skeletons from all the breeds of dogs and lined them up You could state that they were proof of the Saint Bernard, Alaskan Malamute, Grey Hound and Grand Pyrenees dogs all evolved from a Chihuahua......

 

[Aman777]

Lets "bold" the complete thought in this text that you lean so heavily on, shall we?

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

So, now we see what every living creature the writer is talking about... every living creature which is in the waters.

This passage is talking about the living things in the waters.

The text "which the waters brought forth abundantly" describes the previous text "every living creature that moveth"

It places the "every living creature" in the water.

It precedes and does not involve the land animals.

Not so, since God (Trinity) created every living creature that moveth from WATER and some according to His (Jesus) kinds which were NOT made until the next day from the ground. Gen 2:19 It's because God can see the end from the beginning:

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure:

You don't seem to understand that last year Scientists discovered the SAME thing when they found that the last universal common ancestor had its origin in WATER.. in total agreement with what God told us 3k years ago in Genesis. God the Trinity made the creatures from water according the His (Jesus) kinds so that they could produce offspring with each other. Their (Trinity) kinds and His (Jesus) kinds can have children together. God Bless you

 

[JacksBratt]

Not so, since God (Trinity) created every living creature that moveth from WATER and some according to His (Jesus) kinds which were NOT made until the next day from the ground. Gen 2:19 It's because God can see the end from the beginning:

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure:

You don't seem to understand that last year Scientists discovered the SAME thing when they found that the last universal common ancestor had its origin in WATER.. in total agreement with what God told us 3k years ago in Genesis. God the Trinity made the creatures from water according the His (Jesus) kinds so that they could produce offspring with each other. Their (Trinity) kinds and His (Jesus) kinds can have children together. God Bless you

That kind of contradicts this"

John 1:3New International Version (NIV)
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.