Why is one religion so devided?

[lismore]

If science proves a point (with evidence) that would render a portion of scripture void, would that not shatter your view of your own religion?

'IF', don't hold your breath while waiting.

 

[lismore]

This is not a question of science.

Sure it is.

 

[NobleMouse]

@NobleMouse

I just noticed the casey luskin article there.

The article bases an argument around these tracks that came about 10 million years prior to tiktaalik (zechelmie tracks). In other words, how could tiktaalik be a transitional if the transition from fish to tetrapod occurred 10 million years prior to tiktaaliks existence?

To respond to this, imagine if I had a book that was 4.56 billion pages long (the number of years in the age of the earth, and the number of years identified in the faunal succession and in the geologic succession). To equate to the number of years in the geologic succession.

Then the predicted and discovered location of the "word" tiktaalik would simply be 10 million pages after the "word" zechelmie tracks.

I we were to cut the numbers down by dividing each age by 10 million (4.56 billion/10 million, 375 million/10 million and 385 million/10 million , we would have a book that is 456 pages long, and the tetrapod tracks and tiktaalik fossil would be less than a single page apart (on pages 37 and 38 respectively).
-------------------------------------------------------

Now, let me ask this, if the succession and transition between fish to tetrapod, was predicted to be between the late silurian and the late devonian (between pages 42 and 36), of what value is it to young earthers to say, no no, "the word" tiktaalik that was predicted and found on page 37, isnt a transitional because the first tetrapod tracks (zechelmie) were actually identified on page 38.

You would say that, the predicted transition occurred over some 60 pages (late silurian to late devonian), so why would a single page difference (38-37) within that range (42-36), somehow be a challenge to the faunal succession?

The fact that tiktaalik is found just 1 page away from the zechelmie tracks, in a 456 page long book, is a testament to the reality of the faunal succession. Tiktaalik could have been on page 300, 450, 200, 100, 50, 10, as could have the zechelmie tracks. They could have been found on any page, they could have been found anywhere on earth, at any depth. But no, tiktaalik was found on page 37, literally less than a single page away from the foot tracks being discussed by casey luskin (zechelmie tracks on page 38).

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

Imagine if i gave you a book that was 456 pages long, and i said that based on the faunal and geologic succession, the word "bird" would be found for the first time on page 14, and you discovered that it was actually on page 15. And you argued that because it was on page 14 and not 15, somehow my theory is in danger of being completely false.

I would laugh and I'd say, of all the pages of the book, of all the locations on earth, of all the 3 dimensional depths deep in the earth, i predicted their location within a single page. Why in the world, would you think that my science is wrong because you found out that it was page 14 and not 15?

Casey Luskin is making a senseless and deceptive argument. Where he is exacerbating a minor detail, making it sound as if it is some hugely detrimental find, when in reality the discovery of the zechelmie tracks is just further proof, or evidence, and a further testament to the reality of the faunal succession, simply because even the zechelmie tracks, are in the book right where we would anticipate they would be, in that 42-36 range. The fact that the tracks are 1 page from tiktaalik simply brings more precision to our already accurate predictions and understanding.

Wow, lots of page numbers... I'm not sure that saying I see a fish in layer 'a' and a walking creature in layer 'c' and then predicting to see what you interpret as a transition in layer 'b' means hundreds of millions of years and evolution. As we can see from marine life, there is a great variety and so one can easily (and logically) make any connection you just about wish. Fish can become tetrapods, fish can become birds (as we have flying fish), fish can become a geologist (as we have fish with lungs). If God only intended to allow for only one type of fish, one type of bird, one type of beast of the field the discussion would be more cut and dry; however, there is vast diversity and while you do a great job of illustrating many different examples of the diversity in life - it doesn't challenge my view that God created great diversity to begin with and also allows for adaptation to environments - creating further diversity. For me, the fish remains a fish, the salamander a salamander, the dinosaur a bird (just kidding) and man remains a man. Given the framework and paradigm that you operate under, your conclusions are scientific, reasonable and logical and I understand this worldview. Given the paradigm and worldview I operate under, it does not hold water. As @Archie Dupont pointed out, don't let the pet peeve get under your skin too much. This is good discussion brother!

 

[Job 33:6]

Wow, lots of page numbers... I'm not sure that saying I see a fish in layer 'a' and a walking creature in layer 'c' and then predicting to see what you interpret as a transition in layer 'b' means hundreds of millions of years and evolution. As we can see from marine life, there is a great variety and so one can easily (and logically) make any connection you just about wish. Fish can become tetrapods, fish can become birds (as we have flying fish), fish can become a geologist (as we have fish with lungs). If God only intended to allow for only one type of fish, one type of bird, one type of beast of the field the discussion would be more cut and dry; however, there is vast diversity and while you do a great job of illustrating many different examples of the diversity in life - it doesn't challenge my view that God created great diversity to begin with and also allows for adaptation to environments - creating further diversity. For me, the fish remains a fish, the salamander a salamander, the dinosaur a bird (just kidding) and man remains a man. Given the framework and paradigm that you operate under, your conclusions are scientific, reasonable and logical and I understand this worldview. Given the paradigm and worldview I operate under, it does not hold water. As @Archie Dupont pointed out, don't let the pet peeve get under your skin too much. This is good discussion brother!

Well, we cant make a connection of fish to birds, because superpositionally in the earth, the tetrapod transition occurs before the bird transition does (tetrapods are in the devonian, as discussed above, while the bird transition occurs in the mesozoic). As do the reptile (carboniferous) transitions. So you end up with the order of fish(ordovician)>tetrapod/amphibian(devonian)>reptile/dinosaur(carboniferous) then to birds (mesozoic).

But if this isnt a discussion about science or observation, then it is what it is.

But beyond this, a key point is the fact that, by comparing DNA similarities, we can construct a phylogenetic tree, that is identical to the one that exists in the fossil succession. For example, your fish will be genetically more similar to amphibians, than fish are to birds. And your reptiles will be genetically more similar to birds, than amphibians.

And our biology, matches the fossil succession.

What other reason could this be, but not for the faunal succession depicting common descent over geologic deep time?

And this is really the main point where geology and biology complete one another. They independently derive the same answers, and allow one field to make predictions about another. Where geologists can predict biology and biology can predict geology. Not by chance or pure luck or randomness. But by an understanding of truth.

 

[NobleMouse]

Well, we cant make a connection of fish to birds, because superpositionally in the earth, the tetrapod transition occurs before the bird transition does (tetrapods are in the devonian, as discussed above, while the bird transition occurs in the mesozoic). As do the reptile (carboniferous) transitions. So you end up with the order of fish(ordovician)>tetrapod/amphibian(devonian)>reptile/dinosaur(carboniferous) then to birds (mesozoic).

But if this isnt a discussion about science or observation, then it is what it is.

As per the topic, the discussion is around why one religion is so divided. As you and I have consistently demonstrated our world view of what is true is influenced by what we are taught and what we ultimately believe is true. I and many YEC's turn to scripture as the ultimate source (though secondarily corroborate with the findings of YEC scientists) to back up our position while you and other OEC's turn to the findings of mainstream scientists to back up your position. Fair enough.

But beyond this, a key point is the fact that, by comparing DNA similarities, we can construct a phylogenetic tree, that is identical to the one that exists in the fossil succession. For example, your fish will be genetically more similar to amphibians, than fish are to birds. And your reptiles will be genetically more similar to birds, than amphibians.

And our biology, matches the fossil succession.

Should there not be DNA similarities because God created these animals without evolution? If God uses DNA as a type of biological programming (which YEC scientists agree with their secular colleagues that DNA is where biological information is stored), we would expect DNA similarities in all life for which there are common qualities. To some extent, your and my DNA has similarities to the fish as we both have organs such as eyes, a mouth, digestive system, cardiovascular system, etc... just as God created. In fact, it would make no sense theologically or scientifically for all life on this planet to not have similar physical qualities.

What other reason could this be, but not for the faunal succession depicting common descent over geologic deep time?

The faunal succession isn't nearly as consistent as one might infer by your statements about it.
Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column | The Institute for Creation Research

And this is really the main point where geology and biology complete one another. They independently derive the same answers, and allow one field to make predictions about another. Where geologists can predict biology and biology can predict geology. Not by chance or pure luck or randomness. But by an understanding of truth.

I don't think anyone doubts the two branches have worked very hard together to synthesize a consistent view. Predictability simply arises when there is any degree of commonality as in common physical traits by a common creator and has nothing to do with the history and mechanism(s) the creator used to bring about life. There are plenty of life forms that fall out of order in the fossil record, plenty of life forms that just seem to suddenly 'appear' in the fossil record, and plenty of life forms that just seem to have missed the evolutionary train over the alleged geologic deep time.

 

[Job 33:6]

" There are plenty of life forms that fall out of order in the fossil record"

Well, as seen above, the tetrapod transition does not appear outside of the succession. So your position is not reflected in the evidence. If you think it is, feel free to name a fossil outside of the succession.

@NobleMouse

 

[Archie Dupont]

'IF', don't hold your breath while waiting.

Good thing I can breathe again since attending school

 

[Purity Clarity Parkes]

It is difficult for me as a Christian to understand why there are so many different theories about how we came to be. There are those who literally believe the scriptures that the earth was created in a weeks time (and consequently no more than about 3000 years old). Other Christians believe that the world is about 10.000 years old. There are those who believe that the whole concept of evolution is true but designed by God.

How and where can we possibly find the true answer and how can we as a religion rally behind that single viewpoint. Unity on this subject is a long way away and therefore paints the perfect bullseye for atheists and skeptics on one of the must controversial aspects of religion.

I have tried to to find a good answer to this problem but absolutely everyone thinks something else. I hope people can give insight on this subject, both for me and for a lot of other people who struggle with the same question.

Blessings and peace

The logical way to calculate the Earth’s age would be the C+(A+5). Where ‘C’ is the current date, ‘A’ is the day of Adam’s creation and the 5 being the days before Adam. Adam’s creation was approximately in 4000 BC (earliest).
This would make Earth 6017 and a few days old.
Please pardon my addiction to algebra.
Yours Sincerely~
~Purity Clarity Parkes

 

[Tom 1]

It is difficult for me as a Christian to understand why there are so many different theories about how we came to be. There are those who literally believe the scriptures that the earth was created in a weeks time (and consequently no more than about 3000 years old). Other Christians believe that the world is about 10.000 years old. There are those who believe that the whole concept of evolution is true but designed by God.

How and where can we possibly find the true answer and how can we as a religion rally behind that single viewpoint. Unity on this subject is a long way away and therefore paints the perfect bullseye for atheists and skeptics on one of the must controversial aspects of religion.

I have tried to to find a good answer to this problem but absolutely everyone thinks something else. I hope people can give insight on this subject, both for me and for a lot of other people who struggle with the same question.

Blessings and peace

I’m not suggesting that I have any insight into God’s thought process, but, it seems to me there were 3 options in laying out the creation story:

1) Provide mankind in some format with a complete explanation of the process of creation
2) Provide a partial explanation
3) Let Moses write what he understood about creation in an artistic form that distinguishes the Genesis narrative from other creation stories on all important points.

My thinking is:

1) Why? How? Who would understand it?
2) Pointless
3) Teaches us what we need to know about God and where we stand in relation to God, which is the point, as I see it, of the bible.

The confusion comes in when we try to reinvent the wheel by bending the scriptures into saying things they weren’t intended for.

 

[Job 33:6]

I know that people will deny this, but really this whole discussion is just history repeating itself. Galileo recognized that the earth was not in the center of the universe, and people rejected that, and they used scripture to justify their position and to deny his position. They didnt believe in or understand science and mathematics of that time. Most scientists dont understand or arent aware of science. And there is nothing wrong with this, just as scientists might not know much about other things like running a business or dynamics of sports or computer programming etc.

Here we have another situation, where scientists know whats going on (we know very well that the earth is old), from a science perspective, and it is very clear, just as it is clear now to many that the earth revolves around the sun. Its just a question of, will people accept this when it is spoken to them? In many cases it is accepted, 99.99% of geologists are well aware of this fact. But naturally we have people who reject this, and just like in the past, they hold scripture up as their voice.

Christians, or young earthers in particular, dont want to hear this and will reject this post, but it is the truth.