If Evolution

[6days]

Young Earth creationist Dr. Kurt Wise (PhD in paleontology) has observed that the horse series along with many others are "very good evidence for evolution."

Several times you have been caught dishonestly quote mining Dr.Wise. He rejects your secular beliefs Barbarian...

Dr. Kurt Wise: "Creation isn't a theory. The fact that God created the universe is not a theory, it's true. However, some of the details are not specifically nailed down in Scripture. Some issues such as creation, a global flood, and a young age for the earth are determined by Scripture, so they are not theories. My understanding from Scripture is that the universe is in the order of 6,000 years old. Once that has been determined by Scripture, it is a starting point that we build theories upon. It is within those boundaries that we can construct new theories" That quote from atheist site RationalWiki.
Yes, He is speaking to me. (Apparently not to you). As you say "Just accept it as it is."

Kurt Wise says that people who are evolutionists deny the veracity of scripture: "It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis (e.g., the order of creation, the distinctness of created kinds, the absence of pre-Fall carnivory, the lack of higher animal death before the Fall, the creation of Adam and Eve, the “very good” status of the creation at the end of the Creation Week, the great longevities of the patriarchs, the global nature of the Noahic Flood, the dispersion of people away from the Tower of Babel). This in turn challenges the integrity of any concept built upon these chapters. Yet, it is my understanding that every doctrine of Christianity stands upon the foundation laid in the first few chapters of Genesis (e.g., God is truth, God is a God of mercy and love, Scripture is true, all natural and moral evil on the earth can be traced back to man’s Fall, Christ’s return is global, Heaven is a perfect place with no sin or death or corruption of any sort). Thus, an earth that is millions of years old seems to challenge all the doctrines I hold dear."https://creation.com/kurt-p-wise-geology-in-six-days.

Re your claim about horse evolution,Wise does NOT ever claim they are transitional. He does says there is fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms which can be understood to strongly support macroevolutionary theory." As you said Barbarian...'Come to terms with the fact. And then you won't have to reword what he said. Just accept it as it is.'

 

[The Barbarian]

(6Days gets caught in another dishonesty)

He rejects your secular beliefs Barbarian...

He admits that the horse series is "very good evidence" for evolution. He rejects your secular beliefs.

Re your claim about horse evolution,Wise does NOT ever claim they are transitional.

The title of his paper refers to them as "transitional forms." Do you think anyone forgot? But the point is that he honestly admits that the horse series is "very good evidence" for evolution. You aren't clever enough to pull off the kind of deception you're trying.

You'd be better off doing as he does; honestly admit that the evidence for evolution is strong and numerous. And you might want to step up and answer the question you've been dodging.

So far, no one can show any differences between Hyracotherium and Orohippus that is greater than can be found within many species. Now as you see, there's no differences between Orohippus and Mesohippus that are greater than can be found in many species.

Unless you'd like to show us one or more of them. How about it? Stop trying to be deceptive, and deal honestly with the evidence.

As Dr. Wise did.

 

[Interplanner]

No, I know it exists. I also know it is not a scientific journal. And you have not provided an appropriate citation anyway.

You're unreasonable Jonah. You dismissed all the scientists on IS GENESIS HISTORY?--the doc. That's what you do all day. when you say science you mean uniformitarianism. You don't mean science. You mean you have to believe atheistic uniformitarianism and then procede.

In contrast, this is science: you compare two 'meetings' of two eggs.
1st: you push two eggs together slowly, taking 24 hours (steering them is OK) until the material is 1mm thick, no matter how wide or high.
2nd: you roll two eggs at each other and compare the results of 1 and 2.

The major structures of earth do not look like the processes of #1.

As one clear ex., find the shot of the chunk of crust in S. Africa on its side. It held together as a unit, but it is not a product of things moving 1 inch per year. Nor are thousands of other items all over the earth.

In the 80s a Brisbane, Australia, bank was excavating for a new building, and in the undisturbed sedimentary soil, a Mayan calendar stone was located and extracted.

Likewise, oil drilling geologists find the same soil samples in the Congo as in Brazil.

The concept of tectonic plates was originated by a theologically informed scientist when he was in the coincidence of studying the Genesis texts on that AND saw some of the first pictures of earth from space, back in the 70s or whenever.

when I said you don't think it exists, I meant you don't think that anyone doing science would ever write material like that (ARJ) which has no final conflict with the Bible. I should have put it that way, excuse me.

Every day on the radio program I listen to, the closing states that thousands of scientists are finding out that there is no final conflict between the two. The expression 'no final conflict' comes from an essay on the subject using that title by Dr. F. Schaeffer, from L'Abri Switzerland, in the 1970s. You'll be surprised at what you find in that! It was published by InterVarsity Press. He also wrote GENESIS IN SPACE AND TIME. Which takes up more of the pre-amble types of questions rather than the science.

You would need to explain why a person can't start with a view that is corroborated by about 500 accounts around the world that affirm the essential message of Genesis: a Creator, a revolt or departure by mankind, a destruction. There is no rule at all that says you must start with Lyell's view or Darwin's view.

 

[Interplanner]

Don't be so pseudoscientific Greg. You likely believe that Mars was once covered by vast oceans... a planet without any surface water yet you reject the science that shows every bit of Earth has been underwater in the past and is still currently covered by about two-thirds water

I don't recall the journal, but there are articles on a submarine ocean under China even today. What I gather from the catastrophists is that there is plenty of evidence that plates collapsed, submerged and were reset. One item from S. Africa is a surface-observed crack with a 10,000 ft slip, but the Snelling-Baumgartner-Austin article last week was referring to slippages of several verticle miles; Monterey Canyon is much larger than Grand.

The Gilgamesh Epic shares the expression 'the deep' with Genesis, and one of the features of the Nordic legend is that of massive whorls in the ocean during the catastrophe. Meaning there was either a massive uplift or a massive opening below...

Baumgartner once explained that it resembled taking maybe 6 sq inches of a basketball's surface, in a pan of water, mud and sand. Press the section down and then let it rise and watch the type of motion and deposits you get.

 

[2003cobra]

That is a wee bit heretical. If the flood is a myth, then the return of Jesus is a myth.
When a person rejects the fou station to the gospel, they undermine every Christian doctrine, and make the cross become meaningless.

No, the existence of Jesus Christ in not dependent on the flood. He is far more powerful than any story.

Heretical? Nah.

 

[6days]

The title of his paper refers to them as "transitional forms."

Dr Wise states evolutionists deny the veracity of scripture: "It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis "


Dr. Wise does not ever claim a fossil is actually transitional. He does says there is fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms (by evolutionists) It is in the very first line of the abstract.

 

[Jonahdog]

The concept of tectonic plates was originated by a theologically informed scientist when he was in the coincidence of studying the Genesis texts on that AND saw some of the first pictures of earth from space, back in the 70s or whenever.

You cannot even get the basic information correct. The concept of tectonic plates was first put forth as a coherent theory by Alfred Wegener in 1915. He wrote a small monograph "The Origin of Continents and Oceans". I have a copy of it. Go to your local college library. His theory was not accepted until the work of Bruce Heezen and Marie Tharp in the mid 1950's that evidence began to be discovered showing the mid-ocean ridge.

I have no idea what the theology of Wegener, Heezen or Tharp was but I'd bet it had NO impact on their science.

Oh, and a citation to the Brisbane Mayan calendar report if you please.

 

[Veritas veritate]

Barbarian calls RD's bluff:
What differences do you see that are greater than can be found within a single species of animal?

Show us your list, and then we'll go on and see if we can find a transitional between Orohippus and whatever is next. It's a long series. Let's see what you've got.

RD cuts and runs:


He didn't last long. Any other creationist want to step up and try it?

I'll give it a shot; actually, I'm still waiting on a response from you in regards to my last post in which I addressed your "known" transitional fossils. However, lets address the pictures in which you are referring in your post above.

First, you must define what you mean by "species," because just like "kind," it is a very ambiguous term. They do look very similar, and as you said the differences could have happened within a single "species" of animal. But we must go a little deeper to see the ruse here do we not? Speciation has never been opposed by creation (at least it shouldn't be because we observe this constantly); however, there are some questions that need to be answered about the two examples that you have given. First, why have these two skeletons been scientifically classified in different families? If the differences could be have happened within a single “species”, why place them in a completely different class of family? There is no logical explanation as to why these two skeletons do not come from the same family. Aside from that, they are both dead, and they both died a long time ago. Other than that, they tell us nothing. Did they produce offspring? Were their parents something other than a similar creature? How long have they been dead? Science cannot answer any of those questions. It is impossible to answer those questions without fabricating information that has not been observed, ever.

 

[Interplanner]

You cannot even get the basic information correct. The concept of tectonic plates was first put forth as a coherent theory by Alfred Wegener in 1915. He wrote a small monograph "The Origin of Continents and Oceans". I have a copy of it. Go to your local college library. His theory was not accepted until the work of Bruce Heezen and Marie Tharp in the mid 1950's that evidence began to be discovered showing the mid-ocean ridge.

I have no idea what the theology of Wegener, Heezen or Tharp was but I'd bet it had NO impact on their science.

Oh, and a citation to the Brisbane Mayan calendar report if you please.

No, the dates on what I'm talking about are about 200 years earlier; the same who had the 4 events linked to what we now call by sample names--Cambrian etc.

btw, the same article that featured the Mayan calendar also discussed that the rock staples (to stablize structures) found at Naszca are only also found in modern Thailand, being used the same way.

I don't see any point in sending you anything as long as you don't understand the presuppositional issues involved. There is nothing about the Bible that does not make sense once those are understood as such, which is why I wrote about Hyperborean element of the Third Reich's cosmology yesterday: they knew you either deny it all or dialecticize it so that the evil, gigantic, long-living people before the deluge were the 'good' guys.

There are about 10 items in the bibliography I posted several months ago that relate to this topic. But as I said until you allow for the elements of the presupposition of it, what's the point? I'm not asking you to put a few odds and ends upon a basis that says God is not there, does not speak or act. Do you realize this and do you realize it would be stupid to try to do so?

'All the mathematician can tell you is that X days from now, there will be X number of units accumulated there. They can never tell you what a psychic or detective or psychologist sees about the situation.'--C. S. Lewis, "Religion and Science" GOD IN THE DOCK.

 

[Veritas veritate]

Never mind that there isn't enough water to do that :chuckle:

But you know that...

I hope that you are kidding here. If you could reverse the tectonic shifts and collisions that created the current mountain ranges and dropped the floor of the oceans there is enough water to submerge the planet up to 8,000 feet. The ice caps alone have enough water to raise sea levels by 200 feet if they melted. Flooding is still a major concern for scientists who subscribe to global warming.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'll give it a shot; actually, I'm still waiting on a response from you in regards to my last post in which I addressed your "known" transitional fossils.

Sorry I missed it. Could you point me to the number of the post?

However, lets address the pictures in which you are referring in your post above.

First, you must define what you mean by "species," because just like "kind," it is a very ambiguous term. They do look very similar, and as you said the differences could have happened within a single "species" of animal.

You have a good point. Would you be willing to use the accepted biological species definition? It works well for sexually reproducing organisms. Perhaps it would be best to use recognized mammalian species as a benchmark?

But we must go a little deeper to see the ruse here do we not? Speciation has never been opposed by creation (at least it shouldn't be because we observe this constantly); however, there are some questions that need to be answered about the two examples that you have given.

I'm aware of this. Hence, I'm using differences small enough that each step is acceptable to creationists.

First, why have these two skeletons been scientifically classified in different families?

Not families. Different genera. The hierarchy is: species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain. "Domain" is a fairly new idea, separating eukaryotes, bacteria, and archae.

If the differences could be have happened within a single “species”, why place them in a completely different class of family?

They didn't. These are different genera. You could make an argument for later Hyracotherium being almost the same as early Orohippus. It is precisely because evolution leads to speciation that classifications are messy.

There is no logical explanation as to why these two skeletons do not come from the same family.

They do. Although I'm pretty sure creationists admit Mesohippus into the "horse kind", it seems they don't allow Orohippus there. But as you see, they could be extreme varients of a single species.

Aside from that, they are both dead, and they both died a long time ago.

Evolutionary theory allows that. Extinction is a fact, and organisms that go extinct still existed in the past.

Other than that, they tell us nothing.

They tell us that the general trend in horse evolution (there were a lot of branches, and some didn't follow the general trend) is toward larger size, more robust teeth more adapted to grazing than browsing, reduction in toes and a less flexible spine.

This occurred during a cooler and drier time in the Earth's history, when forest were reduced and grasslands spread widely. So it makes sense.

Did they produce offspring?

It only matters that some of them did, not the particular one that happened to fossilize.

Were their parents something other than a similar creature?

As Darwin pointed out, every organisms is slightly different than its parents.

How long have they been dead?

Depends on the fossil. Dating fossils is accurate in the context of geologic ages.

Thanks for your answer. Let me know about your question that I missed.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The title of his paper refers to them as "transitional forms."

Dr Wise states evolutionists deny the veracity of scripture:

No. He states that they deny his particular interpretation of scripture, as your quote makes clear:

"It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis "

He's an honest creationist. You could learn from him. However, you again dodged the point. Dr. Wise freely acknowledges that the horse series (among many others) is good evidence for evolution.

In this thread, I'm now showing you why.

 

[Veritas veritate]

Sorry I missed it. Could you point me to the number of the post?

Sure, the post is #306, but it looks like we will be going over a good amount of what I covered there in our current discussion, which should be interesting. Thank you for taking the time to reply. I will have to give a better response to your post later. Right now I do not have access to my computer and trying to do advanced coding for quotes and such on my phone frustrates me to no end. I hope you can understand. I would also like to have a discussion on the age of the earth without touching the subject of biological evolution in a future thread if you are up to it.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Right Divider]

Do you think you're coming off smart here?

You are literally flaunting your own ignorance.

As a side note: thanks. You and your silly remarks are part of what keeps me coming back

Smart enough to understand bone tricks.

 

[6days]

No. He (Dr. Wise) states that they deny his particular interpretation of scripture, as your quote makes clear:

"It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis "

He's an honest creationist.

Yes... He honestly believes that your belief system denies the veracity of Scripture. Because of that Dr. Wise does not believe fossils represent millions of years of change, but calls it an interpretation . He also says that the creationist interpretation is often a better fit to the evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by 6days View Post
Dr Wise states evolutionists deny the veracity of scripture:

Barbarian observes:
That's not true. He states that they deny his particular interpretation of scripture, as your quote makes clear:
It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis

He's an honest creationist.

Yes... He honestly believes that your belief system denies the veracity of Scripture.

But that's not what you claimed he said, was it?

In spite of his beliefs, he openly acknowledges that the horse series is very good evidence for evolution, as he wrote in his paper Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure, the post is #306, but it looks like we will be going over a good amount of what I covered there in our current discussion, which should be interesting. Thank you for taking the time to reply. I will have to give a better response to your post later. Right now I do not have access to my computer and trying to do advanced coding for quotes and such on my phone frustrates me to no end. I hope you can understand.

No problem. Feel free to bring it up whenever it's convenient for you.

I would also like to have a discussion on the age of the earth without touching the subject of biological evolution in a future thread if you are up to it.

I'm a biologist, so I'm not an authority on the age of the earth. However, I do have a friend who is an expert in geochronology, so perhaps I can discuss it with a little help.

 

[6days]

He states that they (evolutionists) deny his particular interpretation of scripture, as your quote makes clear:
It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis

Ha... yes Dr Wise states "It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis".

He's an honest creationist.

Of course.

* As an honest creationist he feels that you are denying the veracity of Scripture upon which the Gospel is based.

* As an honest creationist he rejects interpretations of evidence that contradict God's Word such as transitional fossils.

* As an honest creationist he discusses how scientific evidence supports the truth of God's Word and a young creation.

* As an honest creationist, he has learned that evolution is not the only claim of modern 'science' which must be rejected if Scripture is assumed to be true.

In spite of his beliefs, he openly acknowledges that the horse series is very good evidence for evolution, as he wrote in his paper Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms.

Unlike the honest creationist, we now see the dishonest evolutionist. Wise does not consider the horse series to be transitional. After all, he believes God's Word and talks about how there is scientific evidence for the young earth... and how there are in some cases better explanations for the evidence than evolutionary explanations.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I've already shown you that your "facts" are not facts at all. And that your pretty pictures with their fake "information" are no better.

You can continue to brag like a junior high-school kid, since that seems to make you feel all superior. :baby:

Dude, your description to me about evolution was an "organism crawling out of a pile of poop" so give it up.

You're the one acting like some kid who's been denied X Box privileges...

lain:

 

[Ktoyou]

like some kid who's been denied X Box privileges...

lain: