Creation Vs Evolution As World Views

The Cambrian explosion shows the sudden emergence of entire systems without precursor stepwise adaptations preceeding them. The Trilobites compound eye is a good example. How many trilobites do you have without one? How many with a single eye evolving to a compound eye? How many with a light sensitive eye-spot evolving to a compound eye?

What?

None?

In Christ,

Bob

 

When Helen wrote that, I think she was using the term "men" in the generic use of the word.

I think your comments are typical of those who are not able to marshall logic to defend their position.

Much as I disagree with her Helen usually manages to marshall arguments pertinant to the subject and with some kind of discernable logic behind them. You would do well to emulate her example.

 

The Bible says God created the world in six days and rested the seventh day. Now scientifically COULD he really have done what He said?... err umm.. "yes".

The Bible said that Christ was rasised from the dead and then ascended to heaven. Now with what we know about death and outer space and flying etc COULD God have done what He said ?? err... umm... "Yes".

The Bible said that Adam WAS created first and THEN Eve -- now with what we know about Science - can an infinite God actually CREATE FIRST man and THEN Woman - as just ONE pair such that from "ONE blood He makes all the nations of the earth"... but from what we know of science and what is needed to MAKE a human when their are NO humans around - COULD God have done what He said ??? "YES"!

The Bible said says that through the sin of the ONE man Adam - death came into the world. Now from what we know from science - COULD God have done as He claimed? Could the infinite God do what He said? Could He have a world without death, extermination, disease, carnage, extinction, BEFORE the fall of Adam? ... err... ummm.. "Yes"!

Well then why not believe the atheist evolutionists and be a "Christian Evolutionist" instead of God?

Hmmm - that's a thought.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Trilobite eyes...

Are you telling me that we have trilobites with no eyes and trilobites with complex eyes but nothing in between? No. Trilobites had already evolved eyes by the time they became trilobites so you are asking the wrong question.

Now what do we actually see. We do see evolution of the trilobite eye if you compare the earliest trilobites of the Cambrian with the later trilobites, say of the Devonian. The early trilobites had a relatively simple eye called a holochroal eyes while the later trilobites had a more complex eye called a schizochroal eye. So we do see changes in the eye with time to something more complex.

We also get lucky with the trilobites in that the lens of their compound eye is made of calcite, a fairly hard material that is more easily fossilized. Generally, eyes are made of much softer material that rarely fossilizes. Now we do have indications in the fossil record of either earlier trilobites or ancestors of the trilobites. Some of this comes from fossils of soft bodied creatures that were much like trilobites and may be ancestral. Some are even thought to be soft bodied trilobites before the development of mineralized skeletons made them more likely to be fossiled. We also have trace fossils similar to the trails and burrows of later trilobites that may be softbodied trilobites or their ancestors. But what we do not have are well preserved specimens that would show us what their eyes looked like. You seem to be hanging your hat, at least for this argument, that we will never find such fossils.

I am glad that by referencing the Cambrian explosion you are admitting that we can look at a slice in time of the fossil record, know we are looking at a narrow slice, and know what lived during that time. You will notice, contrary to the predictions of recently created kinds, that we only see certain types of creatures alive during the Cambrian. No birds, no mammals, no amphibians, no reptiles, and only jawless fishes. Another point against a young earth. Or do you have a reason we do not find them there?

 

I see. You were fortunate enough to START with a fully formed trilobite AND its compound eye as STEP ONE?

How "fortunate". How "lucky" for you.

And here I thought you were going to demonstrate HOW we get the Trilobite with its compound eye.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The Cambrian explosion shows the sudden emergence of entire systems without precursor stepwise adaptations preceeding them. The Trilobites compound eye is a good example. How many trilobites do you have without one? How many with a single eye evolving to a compound eye? How many with a light sensitive eye-spot evolving to a compound eye?

What?

None?
</font>[/QUOTE]Just so we dont' lose the "focus" on why the Trilobite is in this discussion at this point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Nope. The trilobite started in the Cambrian with a relatively simple eye and it evolved into a more complex eye with time. I did point that out you know. If you want to see the origin of their eye, you will have to go back in time further than just the trilobites. But these creatures have two things working against us. First, we do not yet have any fossils of these creatures well preserved enough to show soft features such as eyes. Second, the trilobites themselves used calcite, a hard material more likely to fossilize, as the lens in their compound eye.

 

A - this totally debunks your transitional forms assertions.

B - speculation seems "rampant" on your part with "Trace fossils" forming a key link in the "myths and stories" you are trying to string together in place of God. (Dawkins hit the nail on the head on this one).

Nope. What I am doing is using the "story" dreamed up by evolutionists using there evolution-bias and showing that the gaps it displays are more than enough to debunk the claims that you can see the stepwise formation of complex structures in the fossil record for any species.

Wrong "again".

Just as Leaky finds the human footprints millions of years old (where they are not supposed to be) so the data also shows inverse layers, reverse layering etc.

But the "worst" problem for the evolutionist game is exemplified in your statement itself. A utter failure to comprehend the Bible's view of Creation and the Flood. In your statement you pretend to "discredit" what is supposedly a consistent view of God's word regarding the data and what we should "expect to find".

You ignore the sorting action of rising tides and flood levels AND of turbidity currents in a global flood. "As if" science knows nothing about water, floods, turbidity currents etc - or "As if" science would be "at a loss" to know the way turbidity currents would affect the deposits.

You "mix" the evolution paradigm with the Bible paradigm as if that "makes sense in testing what the Bible would predict". When in fact, to test the Bible you must first empty the myths of evolutionism from your "list of assumptions".

Your example of birds is a good one. Birds diving into flood zones and oceans so they can be down at the bottom of the ocean along with crustaceans so they can all "Be at the same level" showing they existed at the same time in history and that the Bible is true.

You just gotta love evolutionism's foibles.

In Christ,

Bob

In Christ,

Bob

 

You got me on the birds there Bob.

Now tell me why we do not find any ray finned fish, or lobe finned fish, or sharks, or marine reptiles, or whales in the Cambrian deposits.

Why do we not find animals with similar bodies and habitats sorted the same? Why are sauropods and elephants not together? Raptors and lions? There is no need to go on with this. The point is made. There is no way to get the kind of sorting seen in the fossil record the way you are advocating.

You think scientists cannot tell the conditions under which a fossil was deposited? You think there cannot tell the degree of turbidity? You look at the size of the particles deposited around the fossil. Big particles mean more turbulance. Small particles equal less or none. You can look for trace fossils around the fossil to see what was crawling or burrowing around. You can look for fossils of other creatures that only live in certain environments.

The fact is that you must assert that everything was alive at the same time, yet their fossils are not mixed together as they should be. Even things with the same general body type and habitat. Why not? Hydraulic sorting? Justify that one please.

And I have already pointed out twice before in the last few days that there is nothing unusual about the footprints Leakey found. Australopithecus walked upright with a bipedal gait capable of making those footprints. How do we know? The curvature of the leg bones, the construction of the knee, the construction of the pelvis, the curvature of the spine, and the location of the hole for the spinal cord all indicate bipedalism. There may be more, that's all I can remember off the top of my head.

 

But let's get back to the birds.

Why are early fossil birds, such as Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, and Compsognathus to name a few, not ever found with modern birds such as finches, sparrows, eagles, ravens, robins, ducks, hummingbirds, buzzards, geese, hawks, etc? How did that sorting happen.

Why is it that the large dinosaurs were sorted such that the only mammals found with them were the small, primitive kind? Not a single lion or bison or deer or elephant.

Why are Ichthyosaurs and Cetaceans not found together? They both have a wide range of types with specific examples of each that were of similar size and that filled the same ecological niches.

How did these deposits that were put down under such turbid condistions get trace fossils interspersed within them? Footprints, trails, burrows?

How did fossils form with very fine silt surrounding them? Fine silt that will only precipitate out under extremely still conditions and then only over long periods of time.

How did we get layers of coal stacked on top of each other with each layer show the effects of trees growing into the peat before it was covered and began to turn to coal?

How did this hydraulic sorting make sure that only certain types of plants were found after certain types of animals appeared? For example, angiosperms, a very broad class, are only found in layers in which mammals are also found. Grasslands only really since the end of the dinosaurs.

 

BobRyan:

You seem to feel that because the fossil record is incomplete this is proof that evolution did not occur. Why isn't it merely a reflection of the fact that fossilization is inherently a rare event? How could a thing that is very rare be expected to show a complete record?

 

John,

It has never crossed my mind that any falsifiable proposition (the testing of which does not have immoral consequences for those involved in the test) cannot or should not be tested based on what it predicts.

I might as well ask you whether it has crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, the POPE is infallible and can be trusted and all these fallible protestants have gotten their doctrines and beliefs wrong. (And I'm a Baptist...this is the only other claim of infallibility (other than perhaps Torah and Koran) that I'm aware of which isn't openly laughed at by everyone.)

I certainly hope it crosses the minds of evolutionists that the Bible might be right. It certainly crosses my mind. And I'm not 100.000000% convinced that evolution is correct. Just 99.99999%.

And John...if you weighed all the fossils out there...you would get your tons.

 

I think John meant a whole lot more fossils. And EVERYTHING we do involves morality and sin. The simple problem is that fossils get their date from the surrounding matter they are found in. There is no proof that the matter wasn't originally created with what some scientists insist is age. Adam was likely created with the appearance of a healthy thirty year old. That doesn't mean that he hadn't been created yesterday... I mean rock and sand and minerals are just that ------ dust and dirt....

 

John,

I don't think we have found all the fossils there are. On that basis, I agree with you that therea are certainly more fossils than we have "on hand." You must also understand that science does not suppose that the earth supported life from the third day of these billions of years. And that not all life forms leave recognizable fossils. I don't think there are too few fossils for old earth to be true.

There is a parallel thread which appears to involve a few semminary-trained folks in the Baptist Debate section of this board. I refer you to that thread, which is the sola scriptura thread, for a discussion of whether OE and creation by evolution are heresies.

A_Christian, why do you think Adam was created as a healthy 30-year-old man instead of as a healthy 20-some year-old man? I'd like to know. Perhaps because I like to think of him as a young guy experimenting with sin as youth are often wont to do.

Paul, UTEOTW, and I have discussed other evidence for Old Earth in other threads. (Mostly UTEOTW) I don't want to hijack this one to re-explain what has been explained there.

 

I think I tend to look at Adam as a 30 year old for several historical reasons:

1. The Song of Solomon was out of bounds for young men until the age of 30 (according to Jewish custom)

2. Jesus started his ministry at about 30 and is called the second Adam.

3. Men continue to develope until about thirty.
Body hair, physique and stature.

I disagree with you about youth. I made most of my own mistakes after the idealism of youth faded --- the realization that things don't get better and what you have isn't really yours.
Sometimes I think I had more sense when I was 21 than when I was 35. Now that I'm 50, well let's just say that memories can be bitter/sweet.

 

Has the thought ever crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, the BIBLE is infallible and can be trusted and these fallible evolutionists have gotten their age of the earth at 4.55 billion years wrong.

Common sense tells me that in 4.55 billion years there should be tons of fossils. </font>[/QUOTE]---------


All kinds of possibilities cross one's mind from time to time. Are they all to be given equal weight? We have no choice but to weigh the possibilities and assign some greater weight than others. The possibility that life has come about through common descent over millions and millions of years continues to be supported more and more by the evidence.

In my own mind, the evidence is so clear - it would be a denial of my own reasoning powers to decide it wasn't true. That's how I see it, sort of like the rest of us see that it is the earth's rotation that causes day and night, not the moving of the Sun around the earth.

The idea that we should accept the Bible literally in Genesis in spite of all evidence to the contrary is appealing to one's hunger for a perfect revelation from God, but . . . it requires us to disregard the evidence as to what actually happened.

Some choose to disregard the Word of God as irrelevant. They have no Genesis reconciliation problem, but they also lose out on the revelation God would have them recieve from His Word.

When some of us choose to continue to treat the bible seriously even while we accept what we must regard as the unarguable truth about the age of the earth, it comes as a slap in the face to be told by our fellow christians we are not treating the Bible seriously. It is precisely our desire to treat the Bible seriously that leads us to look for alternative means of interpreting it, given that the earth is in fact billions of years old and all its life is of common descent.

You question whether this is an allowed procedure in determining God's message for us today.

Most Christians, actually, adopt this very procedure. That is, we ALL OF US interpret scripture in fashion other than what is literally written when we know it isn't literally true.

I simply claim the same right to do that which you and all the rest of the posters on this board do when your own view of reality conflicts with what you read, literally, in the Bible.

 

You keep speaking of all the evidence. There is ONLY speculation based on investigated data. That data maybe accepted in various ways by various people.

MANY people say that they are "Christian". MOST people have no idea what that means. That doesn't suggest that there are not differences that are disernable. Why would the Holy Spirit offer discernment as a gift? I believe we are to and can judge people by their fruit. The fruit of evolutionists has been a major blow to the introduction of people to GOD; however, it does seem to separate the true Christians from those who want to socialize. The real Christians seem to become motivated and the "Christians" in name only seem to lose their Biblical perspective.

 

AC,

Are you saying that evolutionists aren't Christians? Or that we attend church only to socialize? Or that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is a a "Biblical perspective" which is a pre-requisite to being a Christian even in the modern day when science provides a different explanation?

I've always preferred it when folks speak their minds rather than hinting at things.