Serious Evolution/Creation debate

[Phione]

Let's just end this debate. The problem with creationism is that you can't argue for or against it, because it defies laws of science and people can just say, "God can do anything, so it is true." It is possible to argue for or against evolution, but when arguing against it, you're proving just as much that the world is a tomato and we are all its seeds in transformed forms, and normal tomatoes are its incarnations. It just as much proves that only RODAN is real, the rest of us are hallucinations, and he is a dreaming god in an empty world. Could we just wrap this up?

 

[Myzozoa]

if you dont have anything but zealotry (i.e "the problem with creationism is that you can't argue for or against it, because it defies laws of science") to contribute to the discussion, then perhaps you shouldn't post.

 

[mattj]

You know, while obviously creationists who do these things exist, I think it's important to point out that not every person who believes that the God of the Bible created the universe is Ken Hamm. Not every creationist wants their beliefs taught in public schools. Many of us are quite happy sharing our beliefs at our churches and would rather not have some random teacher teach their unique religious interpretations or beliefs to our children. Not every creationist sees this discussion as an "either or" situation. Not every creationist has any problem at all with an ancient universe, natural selection, mutation, shared ancestry, or even in some cases single ancestry. Not every creationist plans to brainwash their children. For example, while my daughter is too young at the moment, I happily plan to read The Origin of Species with her when she is at a point where she is interested and able to at least begin to comprehend and sit through it. It's an important book and she needs to be able to understand why people believe this.

I personally know hundreds upon hundreds of creationists. Almost everyone I know in my life is one. But very few of them fit this ridiculous straw man many of you keep beating. I'm not sure why these... "venting" posts (I guess that's what they are) are tolerated here.




Let's talk vestigial structures and transitional species.

I fully agree that demonstrating how vestigial structures and transitional species can reasonably not be what evolutionists claim they are does not suddenly "destroy the theory of evolution". I don't even think that should be a goal. But if it can be reasonably shown that the coccyx and hip bones and what have you may very well not be vestigial, and if it can reasonably be shown that homo neanderthalis and archaeopterix and company may not be transitional species, what is the value of pointing to them as evidence in these discussions?




Also. Please, please don't even get into "modern theology". If someone wants to be hip and liberal and wishy washy, fell free. But don't fault Christians for taking their sole source material seriously. That makes zero sense. Can you BELIEVE those boy scouts who wanted to adhere to the letter of their regulations lel.

 

[Wishy]

Let's talk vestigial structures and transitional species.

I fully agree that demonstrating how vestigial structures and transitional species can reasonably not be what evolutionists claim they are does not suddenly "destroy the theory of evolution". I don't even think that should be a goal. But if it can be reasonably shown that the coccyx and hip bones and what have you may very well not be vestigial, and if it can reasonably be shown that homo neanderthalis and archaeopterix and company may not be transitional species, what is the value of pointing to them as evidence in these discussions?

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. What if they're not? But they are.

The most important bit of my earlier post on vestigial structures (small edit in bold):

"This organ is still useful" =/= "This organ always and only served this one function, and has never changed in morphology or function ever". Vestigial organs being not as useless as first assumed is not really evidence of what you hope it is evidence for.

Also this doesn't explain (AKA evidence of cetacean pelvic bones having a prior function, stemmed from another form with legs): atavism of hind limbs in cetaceans which has been well(?) documented, why cetacean embryos have hindlimb buds that disappear during development, or the many land-to-water transitioning fossils discovered, or the molecular analysis that says that cetaceans are related to artiodactyls...

 

[shade]

im not gonna bother with this debate because i don't think there actually is a debate but i just wanna clear up some misconceptions

1) the eye is not difficult to evolve

i think the eye has evolved independently like 70 times? slow adaptation of a mammal-like eye from eye spots containing photoreceptors is not far fetched in the slightest. all it takes is a slight curve to turn the eyespot in to a cup (planarians) and you can tell the direction in which the light has come from. the closing up of the curve to create a pinhole camera (some molluscs) allows the beholder to see a vague image. evolution as a lens from jelly or water is the next step (slugs) and then this basic structure can be refined. i put in brackets some living examples of each type of eye just so people can research if they want.

theres also that old curveball that our rod and cone cells are behind a whole heap of layers of stuff which seems like an odd mistake, this doesnt happen in octopi who have some of the most advanced eyes. dunno if its really an error because im not sure if it does any ill, it is certainly weird though.

2) the term transitional fossil is retarded

p much every fossil is a transition fossil as it represents a stage in morphology that is more than likely slightly altered in its kin's skeleton. however, if you're looking for good examples of 'transitional fossils' i would recommend looking at tiktaalik rosaea as it is a prime example in tetrapod evolution. also, archaeopteryx is a fine example of a 'transitional fossil'. i'll paste reasons because i can't be arsed typing them all but this was essentially a topic in one of my lecture series this year
:
Primitive traits

• Slower dinosaur-like growth rate
• No keel
• Spine attaches to the back end of the skull rather than the base
• Forelimbs have three unfused, clawed fingers, no alula
• Maxilla and premaxilla bore unserrated teeth
• Moderately long, bony tail

Derived traits

• Fully developed asymmetrical flight feathers
• Fused furcula from two joined clavicles
• Backward and elongated pubis similar to maniraptors, but not found in more primitive theropods

note: archaeopteryx could not achieve powered flight most likely.

3) do people actually think noahs ark happened?

is that a thing? i always thought even the most die hard christians realised that was kind of mental

i havent cleared up half the things i wanted to because this thread is littered with bad science but who can be arsed really

 

[Jorgen]

I'm surprised ctrl-fing for "micro-evolution" has yet to return anything. That's like the go-to "I'm reasonable so I'll meet you in the middle" position adopted by ID people. At the very least it covers the clearest and most practical single observation of evolution, which is the evolution of antibiotic-resistant microbes, so it's unfortunately kinda successful at making the ID case seem reasonable without actually doing anything to support it.

 

[Pappy777]

Okay, no. Two of each animal would NOT be enough to repopulate. If two humans were left on Earth, and they were a boy and a girl, the human race would be wiped out. The reason being that sure, they can have children, and now what? Those children are FORCED TO INBREED. Soon, you get genetic defects and sterility. The human race is not back on its feet. It is dying.

If only two of every group are there, and you argue against evolution, how did subspecies and variations appear?

And for your argument of no transitional forms, scientists have discovered plenty. We have discovered many transitional forms between us and other apes, from Homo erectus to Homo neanderthalensis. We have also dscovered a bipedal, small omnivorous lizard that later grew and is widely believed to be the ancestor of dinosaurs. We have discovered hairy, warm-blooded reptiles that were almost certainly the bridge between lizards and mammals. Transitional forms do exist.

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-noah-fit-the-animals-on-the-ark-and-care-for-them/ https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/transitional-fossils/ https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/variety-within-created-kinds /https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/ape-man/homo-erectus-to-modern-man-evolution-or-human-variability/

mattj

I'm not well versed in evolution, other than that it's what I've been taught and what makes sense to me. However, I was under the impression that there were a few things that even creationists struggle to reconcile.

The one I'll focus on is radioactive decay and carbon dating. Although C14 has a relatively short half-life of 5700-something years, there are radioactive elements with far longer half-lives - and these are often used to date historical artifacts, archaeological discoveries, etc. How does creationism account for this? I've seen some creationist dogma that attempts to discredit C14 dating in particular because it's ineffective for things older than a couple of tens of thousands of years, but implicit in this seems to be the acknowledgement that the world is older than ~6000 years old, as creationism would necessarily have us believe.

Thousands of artifacts and bones have been dated by scientists to millions of years in the past. Even if you purport that the methods used to date these were incredibly fallible to the point where they misrepresent by a factor of a thousand, doesn't this distortion also necessarily have to have occurred to biblical artifacts like the dead sea scrolls that have been dated as "~1500-2000 years old" by the very same methods?

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/

We found some transitional forms like Archaeopteryx. Though for the glass part, if it was filled lower, wouldn't the end point be lower? Also how does one remove radioactivity from a substance? (though really can that happen? I'm not incredible knowledgeable about radioactivity, someone pm me the answer)



I maybe wrong but you seem to believe that all adaptations (according to evolution) are optimal, which is not the case.



The basis against teaching creationism in public schools is a matter of separation of church and government and that if creationism was taught, then so should every other religious approach on how the world was created, which would be like 6 months worth of material to cover and teacher don't have time.





cool so we are on the same page.



I entirely agree with most of this. Species is a hard thing to grasp since there are no real species, its just a human man classification especially when the general rule that 2 different species can't breed together is often broken. I guess more i think about it, the more loaded my question was. Though its nearly impossible to document speciation unless its a multiple generation of experimentors experiment on a species with short generations.

To clarify something, I'm not against evolution / natural selection with a guiding hand from god. I'm against the strict creationism.

https://answersingenesis.org/missing-links/archaeopteryx-has-flown-the-coop/
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/transitional-fossils/
And with the glass of water I was saying that if the assumption is older than what is then all the math, all the work may be correct, but the conclusion would be off

And I know the adaptations "just happen" so to speak, based on the creatures environment, predators, food etc. I do understand the theory of evolution, well probably about as much as a high school graduate at least.

Also I do not think creation should be taught in public schools just so its said.

Peoplr who claimed that life can't be made from chemicals the last page should really check out the infamous Miller and Eurey experiment where complex proteins and all of the 20 amino acids were created from simple molecules under the conditions of early earth. That shit is pretty conclusive.

Also, not believing in vestigial parts is really quite ignorant (not meant to offend, more the literal sense of the word than any colluqialism). There are hundreds of examples such as approx. 1/13 having a second moveable joint in the middle of their feet (not ball) which clearly became less favourable to supporting the feet when we became bipedal.

And yes doubting that all the predecesors to every known living thing could fit on an ark is pretty valid criticism lol. I'm not too versed in this but does this include extinct organisms, water only inhabitants (it would make sense no obv but the phrasing) and the sheer amount of insects?

Look at the phyla presence relationship and you might get where I'm going:

https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis/
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-noah-fit-the-animals-on-the-ark-and-care-for-them/

I'm mainly responding to the OP in this post, but there are elements of responding to other posts.

It is my observation that criticisms of evolution stem from a grave misunderstanding of evolution, and this thread has not convinced me otherwise. A few points I want to make:

1. Don't "believe" evolution. In fact, don't "believe" anything!

By all means, criticize, ask questions, and test claims out for yourself - but do so in a fair an unbiased way. This is actually harder to do than people often assume. Our biology afflicts us with deep-seated cognitive biases that cause us to believe things and then notice only evidence that confirms our beliefs, no matter how hard we try. The only way to fight this - and it must be fought, if you want to seek truth - is constant introspection. Attack yourself as often as possible, and go after your most cherished beliefs. See if they stand up to the most brutal attacks, and if they don't, change your mind. Theories about reality are not inherently "religions" and are not the property of any religious or political group. The word "evolutionist" shouldn't even be used, as it's merely a rhetorical device. There are no "evolutionists", only scientists.

2. The distinction between theory and experiment

Experiments find data (what you call "observational science"), and theories are attempts to communicate the data precisely (what you call "historical science"). So what does it even mean to call a theory observable, repeatable or testable? Those terms are applied to experiment, not theory.

3. God is not a good theory.

God has no explanatory power because it has no precisely defined properties. A theory is not something you make up and then try to confirm, but a description of what you've already discovered about reality. The problem with God is that you can keep making excuses to brush off any skeptical inquiry. Using this, you can make any number of arbitrary claims. You can even throw the word "infinity" around as if it's a magic word that solves all the issues with your claims. This point is a prerequisite for the following ones.

4. "Transitional fossils" and "vestigial organs" are horrible topics to counterargue evolutionary theory with.

The fact is, no matter how many fossils are found, you can always claim that there are no "transitional fossils". You can always ask, "Well, what happened in between?" This mode of inquiry is designed to impose an infinitely high standard on evolutionary theory. Even if we could somehow clone and catalogue every living thing that ever existed, it would still never convince you. That's not debate. That's stubbornness and bullying.

The same thing happens with vestigial organs. The theory of evolution does not prescribe "purpose" to anything. Any "purpose" we ascribe to anything is of our own making, and of course we can make up arbitrary explanations. Seriously, do you guys not feel embarrassed when your modes of reasoning are compared to those of teenage fanfic writers?

5. The Bible does not make "scientific" claims or predictions.

I'm going to sound like a broken record at some point... The Bible makes vague claims and some of them happen to be right. Some claims are so vague that they pretty much have to be right. That's not very impressive. You don't make a theory aiming to force it to be right. You make a theory to test it against the evidence, if anything trying to prove it wrong.

6. A creationist physicist did something useful? Who cares?

I don't know if you noticed, but being an expert in one field does not automatically make you an expert in another. Your field might give you some advantages, but you still have to do the work. Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers are both biologists, but I'd trust neither of them on the topic of sociology.

P.S. Honestly, I kind of find this whole discussion preposterous because the vast majority of criticisms of evolution are entirely off-topic. "Debates" on evolution are anything but, and they always end up not talking about the actual theory at all. Straw manning poorly understood details doesn't happen in any honest scientific discussion I know. It seems if you want to actually talk about evolution itself, you have to leave creationism out of it. Like this thread.

P.P.S.No idea where you're getting all this from, mate...

Some highly recommended reading/viewing:
Evolution: It's a Thing - Crash Course Biology #20
Irreducible complexity cut down to size
AronRa's YouTube channel
Evolution of the eye
An Alien God
Religion's Claim to be Non-Disprovable
Think Like Reality
Ten percent of brain myth
Tyre, Lebanon
Belief in Belief
Does the Universe Need God?
The main point is not to say something against belief in a God (though many of the links are from atheists), but to try to explain various things like evolution and how a successful, useful theory works, as well as debunking some of the false stuff that's been said.

Just so you know I have not always been Christian, though I wouldn't go so far to say atheist I will say I was agnostic. Since then I've put hours and hours into asking myself questions about evolution, big bang, creation, different religions (pretty much only Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but that's my own bias there, I think polytheistic religions are ridiculous) and researching them from different perspectives. And you described exactly what I'm saying referring to worldviews/historical science.
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/
Above is a long list of scientists who reject the theory of evolution and instead believe in creation. They are called creationists so therefore a scientist who believes evolution to be true is an evolutionist. Either that or the term creatonist needs to be done away with, making your statement of there being "only scientists" true.

I don't see where we are in disagreement. I was simply illustrating how evolution is a theory and not observable/repeatable/testable.

Which is why I don't refer to it as the theory of creation. Also the physical/natural parts of the Bible is our reference or theory when observing the world around us, and it makes sense of the evidence so it is equally valid to believe to be true. And the goal would be to find natural explanations before even considering supernatural ones as to avoid using God as "an excuse."

The fact that there are billions of discovered fossils, and not one irrefutable transitional fossil, is not imposing an infinitely high standard on evolutionary theory. Finding these transitional fossils is something completely reasonable to ask from it as there should be quite a few after such a great amount of time. And how you can compare critical thinking to a teenage fanfic is beyond me.

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/
Your problem seems to be the writing style, how it doesn't outright say what it is implying, the Bible is not a science textbook. Or perhaps it's the simplicity of some statements?

The only purpose of sharing his achievement was to head off the "creationists can't be good scientists" way of thinking, nothing more.

And like the straw man arguments of how we believe the Earth is flat, how species don't change, we don't believe in gravity etc.? And I think pointing out flaws in any part of evolution is definitely on topic when debating it's credibility.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/comets/a-comets-tale/
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/comets/comets-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system/

http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html

I don't see how you can ignore this. If humanity, in its short stint of existing in this world, can already see animals evolving right in front of us, then surely you'll be able to appreciate evolution as a whole. I'll just list the first example:

It's becoming more and more common for elephants to not have tusks. And tusks are certainly not vestigial, as they are used to defend themselves from predators, during mating and for gathering food. However, elephants see humans poaching them for ivory as a far greater threat than missing out on these things, and so are starting to evolve without tusks. Sad as hell that that's neccessary for them but that's off topic

Evolution is adaptation, just on a much greater scale.

Elephants: This is showing natural selection, the elephants are losing their tusks do to predators. But this does not prove evolution in the slightest because they are losing, not gaining, a trait.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/

Dogs: As is explained in the above article (and yours), the smarter dogs survive and produce offspring while the ones not smart enough to survive homeless do not survive. This is simply eliminating the ones with inferior intelligence while the smarter continue to survive and reproduce. Natural selection not evolution.

Fish: Same as the elephants, they are losing parts of their DNA through natural selection to survive, again this is not evolving.

Lizards1: In the original paper they said baby lizards know to do this for non-venomous ants, it's a similar situation as the dogs where the ones with the brains to remember the "dance" survive while the others do not. Their offspring are likely taught to retain the knowledge. And as the lizards with shorter legs died out that would leave only those lizards with slightly larger legs to reproduce, not growing legs to deal with the threat.

Lizards2: https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/adaptation/island-evolves-lizards/
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/adaptation/australian-lizard-live-birth-lay-eggs/


Moths: Nothing even changed in the moths in this one, just the more camouflaged ones don't get eaten and survived. Both colors were already there, whichever ones the birds couldn't see at the time produced more offspring.

Bears: This one is horrible for defending evolution as it illustrates how animals reproduce within their own created kind, https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis/






I am trying to respond to everyone but I don't want to spend all day on this, plus I have a job and family so time is limited

 

[KM]

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-...to-modern-man-evolution-or-human-variability/


https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/

https://answersingenesis.org/missing-links/archaeopteryx-has-flown-the-coop/
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/transitional-fossils/
And with the glass of water I was saying that if the assumption is older than what is then all the math, all the work may be correct, but the conclusion would be off

And I know the adaptations "just happen" so to speak, based on the creatures environment, predators, food etc. I do understand the theory of evolution, well probably about as much as a high school graduate at least.

Also I do not think creation should be taught in public schools just so its said.

https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis/
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-noah-fit-the-animals-on-the-ark-and-care-for-them/

Just so you know I have not always been Christian, though I wouldn't go so far to say atheist I will say I was agnostic. Since then I've put hours and hours into asking myself questions about evolution, big bang, creation, different religions (pretty much only Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but that's my own bias there, I think polytheistic religions are ridiculous) and researching them from different perspectives. And you described exactly what I'm saying referring to worldviews/historical science.
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/
Above is a long list of scientists who reject the theory of evolution and instead believe in creation. They are called creationists so therefore a scientist who believes evolution to be true is an evolutionist. Either that or the term creatonist needs to be done away with, making your statement of there being "only scientists" true.

I don't see where we are in disagreement. I was simply illustrating how evolution is a theory and not observable/repeatable/testable.

Which is why I don't refer to it as the theory of creation. Also the physical/natural parts of the Bible is our reference or theory when observing the world around us, and it makes sense of the evidence so it is equally valid to believe to be true. And the goal would be to find natural explanations before even considering supernatural ones as to avoid using God as "an excuse."

The fact that there are billions of discovered fossils, and not one irrefutable transitional fossil, is not imposing an infinitely high standard on evolutionary theory. Finding these transitional fossils is something completely reasonable to ask from it as there should be quite a few after such a great amount of time. And how you can compare critical thinking to a teenage fanfic is beyond me.

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/
Your problem seems to be the writing style, how it doesn't outright say what it is implying, the Bible is not a science textbook. Or perhaps it's the simplicity of some statements?

The only purpose of sharing his achievement was to head off the "creationists can't be good scientists" way of thinking, nothing more.

And like the straw man arguments of how we believe the Earth is flat, how species don't change, we don't believe in gravity etc.? And I think pointing out flaws in any part of evolution is definitely on topic when debating it's credibility.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/comets/a-comets-tale/
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/comets/comets-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system/

Elephants: This is showing natural selection, the elephants are losing their tusks do to predators. But this does not prove evolution in the slightest because they are losing, not gaining, a trait.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/

Dogs: As is explained in the above article (and yours), the smarter dogs survive and produce offspring while the ones not smart enough to survive homeless do not survive. This is simply eliminating the ones with inferior intelligence while the smarter continue to survive and reproduce. Natural selection not evolution.

Fish: Same as the elephants, they are losing parts of their DNA through natural selection to survive, again this is not evolving.

Lizards1: In the original paper they said baby lizards know to do this for non-venomous ants, it's a similar situation as the dogs where the ones with the brains to remember the "dance" survive while the others do not. Their offspring are likely taught to retain the knowledge. And as the lizards with shorter legs died out that would leave only those lizards with slightly larger legs to reproduce, not growing legs to deal with the threat.

Lizards2: https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/adaptation/island-evolves-lizards/
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/adaptation/australian-lizard-live-birth-lay-eggs/


Moths: Nothing even changed in the moths in this one, just the more camouflaged ones don't get eaten and survived. Both colors were already there, whichever ones the birds couldn't see at the time produced more offspring.

Bears: This one is horrible for defending evolution as it illustrates how animals reproduce within their own created kind, https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis/






I am trying to respond to everyone but I don't want to spend all day on this, plus I have a job and family so time is limited

I enjoy your wide variety of credible sources that you totally read, because you know, if you had, you wouldn't have linked them in the first place. I write a post acknowledging the faulty arguments of creationist defending of C14 dating and ask for explanations of radioactive decay, and you link me a collection of already-addressed creationist arguments against C14 dating.

this is not what a citation is. You do not take an obviously biased, extremely narrow scope of sources that only tangentially relate to the concept you're even arguing about and just link it, as if it's some objective goldmine of information that we're meant to sift through and find out exactly what you mean by linking it to us in the first place. Make an argument, and support it with links. Don't just assume that we aren't intelligent enough to use google.

i'd also like to address the ridiculous notion that natural selection and "losing a trait" is somehow not a form of evolution. Evolution occurs through natural selection by definition - individuals with valuable traits that allow them to dominate produce more offspring and make that trait the norm. Whether that trait is the addition of an eye or the removal of a tusk, the basic concept is the same thing. The semantic postulation that evolution necessarily has to have direction implies that evolution has reached, or plans to reach, some optimal state that is supported by a completely static environment. This is frankly bullshit. Species adapt over the long term to long-term environmental changes, and adapt over the short term to short-term environmental changes. The structure and science behind this process is exactly the same thing, regardless of the time-frame in which it occurs. The environment is constantly shifting, and the notion that any trait that we currently hold will be permanent is rather short-sighted.

 

[Pappy777]

I enjoy your wide variety of credible sources that you totally read, because you know, if you had, you wouldn't have linked them in the first place. I write a post acknowledging the faulty arguments of creationist defending of C14 dating and ask for explanations of radioactive decay, and you link me a collection of already-addressed creationist arguments against C14 dating.

this is not what a citation is. You do not take an obviously biased, extremely narrow scope of sources that only tangentially relate to the concept you're even arguing about and just link it, as if it's some objective goldmine of information that we're meant to sift through and find out exactly what you mean by linking it to us in the first place. Make an argument, and support it with links. Don't just assume that we aren't intelligent enough to use google.

i'd also like to address the ridiculous notion that natural selection and "losing a trait" is somehow not a form of evolution. Evolution occurs through natural selection by definition - individuals with valuable traits that allow them to dominate produce more offspring and make that trait the norm. Whether that trait is the addition of an eye or the removal of a tusk, the basic concept is the same thing. The semantic postulation that evolution necessarily has to have direction implies that evolution has reached, or plans to reach, some optimal state that is supported by a completely static environment. This is frankly bullshit. Species adapt over the long term to long-term environmental changes, and adapt over the short term to short-term environmental changes. The structure and science behind this process is exactly the same thing, regardless of the time-frame in which it occurs. The environment is constantly shifting, and the notion that any trait that we currently hold will be permanent is rather short-sighted.

Actually you didn't address the radioactive question to me directly, I have read all of these pages once or twice or I wouldn't even know about them, there is a variety of authors and researchers so the website the information gets posted on is secondary, these weren't cites they were links to informative pages written by scientists who have gone to school for their field of interest (And they include cites), you can't tell me not to choose a source with the same beliefs as me because im just doing what everybody else does, read the pages I have more important matters than to argue when I can just give them my information and let them read, use your noggin and think critically about what natural selection can truly accomplish when the only observed natural selection is genetic mutations and loss of genetic code, and I never made the claim every trait we currently hold is permanent.

 

[mattj]

If the links are well written, well sourced articles that succinctly address the objections brought up why would it be an issue if they are from the same site. AIG is easily the largest creationist website. Wouldn't that be expected? Almost all the info needed is conveniently there.

 

[billymills]

Linking is not sufficient as a response unless the titles of the pages themselves are arguments. If you want to link articles, create an argument first and insert supporting links either inline, or at the end of your post as supplementary material. Your words should stand on their own.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Why would losing a trait not count as evolution?
Evolution only means change, any change including gaining losing and altering of any feature is evolution.

And why reject modern theology when it is evidence/ archeology based?
Why reject everything that has evidence, but instead believe in a book without signiificant evidence?
Have you got any idea of how many arguments they had gone through when deciding which scriptures to include into the current bible?
Do you even know how the bible was finalized?
Do you even know how many scriptures they originally wanted to include in the bible, but they rejected it because they couldn't prove the author of it?
Google the book of Solomon.
Sounds perfectly possible that they made a mistake for Genesis.
Stop being superstitious.

 

[mattj]

I'm not going on that tangent with you in this thread. Reject the inspiration of the Bible all you want. But claiming we just haven't looked into those entirely baseless arguments against the inspiration of the Bible is ill informed.

 

[Cresselia~~]

I'm not going on that tangent with you in this thread. Reject the inspiration of the Bible all you want. But claiming we just haven't looked into those entirely baseless arguments against the inspiration of the Bible is ill informed.

Well, from this Christian based link, you can see that this is actually being taught in Theology classes and colleges.
http://creation.com/did-moses-really-write-genesis
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/did-moses-write-genesis/
(I personally wouldn't think it's just a hypothesis. The original text of Genesis did consist of 3 distinct writing styles, unlikely to be written by the same person)

Of course churches are going to deny it. As they see it as harming Christian faith.
But should faith be really based on a book?
Or should faith be based on your own experiences and guidance from the Holy Spirit?
Why shouldn't the bible be changed from time to time?

It's a bit like... is it more important to read science text books, or more important to do practical work and real-life observing yourself?
Shouldn't you be skeptical and challenge whenever what you've observed does not follow the textbook?

At least, this is the current teaching of both modern day science university courses and theology courses.
And this way of education is chosen for a very good reason.

Ill-informed? Base-less?
If this was the case, why bother teaching these in theology class?
You are saying that the university syllabus was rubbish?

The precise circumstances of the composition of the book of Genesis have been a matter of continual interest for Bible scholars. Since there is strong internal as well as external evidence that Moses wrote Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and since the Pentateuch is considered to be a unit, the approach of most conservative scholarship has been that Moses wrote Genesis also.
Nowhere does Scripture say, however, that Moses actually wrote the narratives or the genealogies of Genesis. There is no statement in Genesis referring to Moses as its author, as there clearly is in the other books of the Pentateuch. Not even Christ or the apostles say that Moses actually wrote or spoke the words they quote from Genesis. While accepting the Mosaic authorship of Genesis, conservative scholars have not detailed the means by which Moses received his information. There are three possible means by which Genesis was composed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: (1) Moses received his information by direct revelation; (2) Moses wrote Genesis using material passed on by oral tradition; or

[page 317] (3) Moses wrote or compiled Genesis using earlier-written documents. Literary items in Genesis make the first possibility seem unlikely. The second possibility also seems remote because of the probability of information being lost or degraded in oral transmission. The third option seems most likely. The majority of evangelical scholars accept some version of the third view but give few details.

Such attacks on these foundational books of the rest of the Bible come both from non-Christians as well as professing Christians.

Shouldn't just label Christians who challenge the bible as anti-Christ, you know.
There's a reason for Christians to want to be accurate in things.
In fact, most of the time, these Christians are the most diligent.


-----
For your info, my father is currently studying theology.
I didn't just make up all this load of what you call rubbish.

 

[Killah]

If the links are well written, well sourced articles that succinctly address the objections brought up why would it be an issue if they are from the same site. AIG is easily the largest creationist website. Wouldn't that be expected? Almost all the info needed is conveniently there.

Here's the problem:

And the evidence is everywhere, creationists have the same evidence evolutionists do, its the presuppositions both groups have that determines how they interpret the evidence. (See the fossil example in the original post)

And the example: The RATE Group Findings, from the Carbon-14 dating page.

AIG does a good job in framing the data, but doesn't paint the full picture. For example, they provide a list of the scientists on the project (PhD's, so they must be unbiased!) without mentioning the fact that they were all young-earthers who took on the project to "clarify the chronology of earth history" or the fact that it was funded by the Institute for Creation Research.

I am not interested in specifying the article's flaws. Here is a link to an assessment of the RATE group's findings. I will post a short version of the relevant findings for the C-14 section here:

1. The amount of C-14 found present in these samples indicate an age of around 50,000 years, assuming no secondary source for C-14 other than the original organic material.
2. The authors declare that, due to the extraordinary care involving the samples, no secondary source of C-14 is possible.
3. Since the age of the samples is approximately 10x older than the age of the Earth, the ratio of C-14 to C must have been 1/500th today's value.
4. The ratio of C-14 to C (likely) largely increased to due the Flood, bringing us near today's levels.

Can you see how prior assumptions have greatly affected the paper's results? They've assumed that no secondary source of C-14 could have contaminated their samples. They've assumed that, because this one tenth of one percent creates an estimated age 10x the expected amount, the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere must have been greatly reduced from the amount in the present. By fitting the data into an expected result, that the age of the Earth is ~6,000 years, they have changed their assumptions to fit their expected result. This is circular reasoning at its finest.

The assessment provides further counterarguments to the RATE findings, but you need to look no further than the AIG article itself to find massive leaps of logic:

These results indicate that the entire geologic column is less than 100,000 years old—and could be much younger. This confirms the Bible and challenges the evolutionary idea of long geologic ages.

50,000-100,000 years. Close enough to 6,000? When you assume your answer is the correct one, when you create a research group with the sole purpose of proving your answer correct, when you view the data with a tinted lens in order to prove your answer correct, you're probably going to think you have proven your answer to be the correct one.

Of the two camps, only one has taken an unbiased view of the world to form its case. Sadly, or perhaps very happily, that group has made it impossible to have an unbiased debate any longer due to the vast amount of supporting evidence. Presuppositions of both sides exist today, you and Pappy are right on this. However, Presuppositions supporting the "evolutionists" have only existed the last hundred or so years; most any of our ancestors who can claim to be "unbiased" have sided with one side since then.

 

[billymills]

I'm going to naively argue that god designing the bible and humans writing the bible are analogous.

God could certainly have created the world recently, whatever timeline you wish. The argument against carbon dating establishes that it would take ~25000 years for carbon levels to reach equilibrium, meaning that they could be substantially different prior to 30000 years. However, there's no reason god couldn't have created the world in the meantime with carbon levels already at equilibrium. However, carbon14 isnt the only system in the world that requires long periods of time. There are hundreds of chemical isotopes with half-lives varying from less than seconds to billions of years (uranium) each of these could establish a timescale if we could determine a stable initial amount. Similarly, other processes, ecosystems, tectonic shifts, water erosion, and hundreds of other natural processes have time scales that can be measured. Someone from a geological background can possibly speak to the accuracy of these time scales, but the point is they exist.

God could certainly have created the world with these timescales in place. Fossils buried, erosion largely in place, continents in drift. However, the same argument applies to the bible.

The bible could have been written by the supposed authors over 1800 years ago. It could have been written under influence of God at that time. But it could also be far more recent. The roman catholic church was extremely powerful in europe and maintained control publishing the bible. Who is to say the original bible (if it even existed) is remotely similar form to what exists now. Who's to say it is even close to God's word in its current form?

Why couldn't the church have created all the stories in the bible as supporting information, just as God created all the Earth with all its natural processes in equilibrium?

 

[mattj]

I meant to post this earlier but had no signal.

Why would the authorship of the first few chapters of Genesis have any impact on this discussion? Whether Moses, or Moses' servant Joshua, or Joshua's servant, or J, D, and E, or anyone else came up with or penned those words they are a linchpin of our belief system. Whether Moses wrote them or not, they are assumed to be true in some sense by various authors and characters throughout the entire Bible, including our most important founder, Jesus, and various other church leaders like Paul. How would the authorship of Genesis change the Christian standpoint on the creation of biodiversity and ancestry?

I don't understand why it's being discussed here.

 

[billymills]

I assumed that the adherence to the bible was based on the assumption the words were divinely inspired. What I am saying is that even if the words were divinely inspired at some point, who is to say they weren't heavily edited and history revised by the church for ulterior motives? I don't think it's beyond reason that a small group of extremely powerful clergy would have been able to completely fabricate stories into or out of the bible to enhance their own power or wealth.

Though if the origin of the bible is of no concern to you, then I don't have any place to argue.

 

[Cresselia~~]

I assumed that the adherence to the bible was based on the assumption the words were divinely inspired. What I am saying is that even if the words were divinely inspired at some point, who is to say they weren't heavily edited and history revised by the church for ulterior motives? I don't think it's beyond reason that a small group of extremely powerful clergy would have been able to completely fabricate stories into or out of the bible to enhance their own power or wealth.

Though if the origin of the bible is of no concern to you, then I don't have any place to argue.

They could have.
Even if they didn't, there were lots of scriptures that they considered to include in the bible, but ended up being rejected. (e.g. book of Solomon)
There are also scriptures they originally think shouldn't be included, but then ended up including it. (Daniel)
So they basically had full power to pick and choose what they wanted.
They could have avoided all the contradicting ones, or things that are considered as not good from their own beliefs. (Which might not be bad as time changes)

How would the authorship of Genesis change the Christian standpoint on the creation of biodiversity and ancestry?

It was traditionally believed to be written by Moses.
But some branches of liberal theology is doubting the authorship, some state that Genesis was a combination of Babylonian/ Greek mythology. (I know it's different from the site I've given)
Which makes it not from God, and thus should be discredited.
So, if the book of Genesis shouldn't have been in the bible, it should directly mean that Creationism is wrong in the first place.

 

[whistle]

Since then I've put hours and hours into asking myself questions about evolution, big bang, creation, different religions (pretty much only Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but that's my own bias there, I think polytheistic religions are ridiculous) and researching them from different perspectives.

why do you find polytheistic religions ridiculous? i ask because i'm curious whether those beliefs are similar to those of atheists regarding christianity.

---

i read a few links from AiG. it's interesting i suppose. their science articles begin with an introductory but accurate summary of the topic, and the ones i read seem to make a good-faith effort at explaining the basics of the non-creationist view. then they post refutations which are ostensibly scientific (citations from journals, some of which are very respected mainstream scientific publications, quotations from people with phds in various fields, etc) and obviously conclude that the creationist view of the topic is correct. for many of their articles i don't buy the logical step from the refutations to the conclusion. the image i have in my head is someone taking to a stone statue with a hammer and chisel. he chips away a few chunks of the statue in different places, then stands up and proclaims that the statue as a whole cannot possibly exist because it's missing a few pieces. i had a few examples but i don't think they add much to my post - after all it is just my personal impression.

the scientific debate is a shitshow on all sides. there are anti-creationist sites that refute the quotations from answersingenesis.org (including the hilariously named noanswersingenesis.org.au). without actually dissecting the links and articles in question personally, there is no way to know which of camp is full of shit and which is not. claims include taking quotations out of context, misrepresenting conclusions, etc - typical scientific accusations. this leads me into my next point:

i think the main reason i believe in evolution is faith. i think this is true for the majority of people who believe evolution is true. evolution is a plausible, logical explanation. but i haven't read the primary sources in any of the polemic sites floating around the internet. i really don't care. evolution makes sense and i think it is true, while creationism does not make sense to me. isn't that faith?

anyways, to conclude this post that was initially supposed to be a few sentences... some stuff from the thread i thought was interesting and might have more potential than head-bashing over "scientific" arguments:
* should creationism be taught alongside evolution in private schools? what about in the privacy of the home, religious or secular? i think it is worthwhile to hear what both arguments are, and mattj's plan sounds awesome even if the sides are swapped. i mean, if nothing else, it was interesting to read AiG and see the actual details of creationist arguments. but i am also in the very minor minority who thinks some climate skeptics are legit scientists (christy @ uah).
* "micro-evolution"? myzozoa's post about why there is a false dichotomy? is there a "strong" form of evolution and a "weak" form? where the "weak" form is the principles of drift, selection, etc (which are in my opinion logically necessary based on our current knowledge of genetic information and reproduction) and the "strong" form is the assertion that the "weak" form alone guided life from inorganic beginnings to today? sounds like one is completely compatible with a creator, while one is not. i think that the strong form is a not-unreasonable conclusion to draw from the weak form, but it certainly isn't the only idea you can have about the start of life.
* scripture and creationism - necessary, and inerrant? optional? silly? is genesis the "only" reason why creationists believe in creation? i am showing my ignorance of religious beliefs and customs here, but if genesis did not exist (not if it was "disproven" - if it never existed), wouldn't the idea of an all-powerful god creating the world still have intrinsic appeal? how do creationists as a whole feel about the role of genesis? i suspect most people posting in this thread do not interact with many creationists, if at all. or know much theology (well, except jynx and a few others).
* is anyone offended that i claim to believe evolution on faith? i'm not particularly tied down to my arguments. convince me i am wrong.

 

[shade]

sorry to go off on a tangent but can mattj or someone answer these q's cause im actually p interested in how these are explained. i was reading those answers in genesis links and didn't fully understand the viewpoint on certain matters.

1) do you actually believe modern humans and dinosaurs co-existed and if so how can you explain the lack of fossil evidence and sheer distance in dating / rock layer of fossils found of both things?
2) how did dinosaurs die out in your opinion? (don't give me that shit that birds are dinosaurs because thats not what i mean)
3) what is your explanation for species such as a. africanus, h. erectus etc.?

i dont wanna argue cause this is the worlds most cyclical debate but itd be cool if someone who does not think evolution is true could answer

 

[mattj]

Which makes it not from God, and thus should be discredited.

The thought that you were heading this direction had crossed my mind.

The problem with this line of thinking is that, as I said, the first few chapters of Genesis are foundational to the entirety of Christianity. It's claims are repeated by various leaders in the Old and New Testament, throughout the Bible. It's not possible for Genesis to be false, and any other part of the Bible to be true. Take for example:

“By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth…Let all the earth fear the Lord…For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it [the earth] stood fast”

And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

There are literally countless other examples.

Christians do not believe that the book of Genesis is credible because it is written by Moses. Many Christians, including myself, do not believe it was written by Moses. We believe it is credible because of our experiences with Jesus Christ. Whether Moses, or Joshua, or Joshua's servant, or JD&E wrote the Pentateuch makes zero difference as to whether or not we believe its claims. I believe it is credible because Jesus said it was credible, and Jesus Christ has proven himself to be credible to me personally.

I genuinely am interested in the topic of who wrote which book, how, and when. But it has no place in this discussion here in this thread.

 

[Cresselia~~]

* "micro-evolution"? myzozoa's post about why there is a false dichotomy? is there a "strong" form of evolution and a "weak" form? where the "weak" form is the principles of drift, selection, etc (which are in my opinion logically necessary based on our current knowledge of genetic information and reproduction) and the "strong" form is the assertion that the "weak" form alone guided life from inorganic beginnings to today? sounds like one is completely compatible with a creator, while one is not. i think that the strong form is a not-unreasonable conclusion to draw from the weak form, but it certainly isn't the only idea you can have about the start of life.
* scripture and creationism - necessary, and inerrant? optional? silly? is genesis the "only" reason why creationists believe in creation? i am showing my ignorance of religious beliefs and customs here, but if genesis did not exist (not if it was "disproven" - if it never existed), wouldn't the idea of an all-powerful god creating the world still have intrinsic appeal? how do creationists as a whole feel about the role of genesis? i suspect most people posting in this thread do not interact with many creationists, if at all. or know much theology (well, except jynx and a few others).
* is anyone offended that i claim to believe evolution on faith? i'm not particularly tied down to my arguments. convince me i am wrong.

* Micro evolution is distinct from macro-evolution.
Micro evolution is the general change of a species over time, within the species;
whilst macro evolution refers to the changing of one species into another species.
There is relatively less evidence of one species changing into another species.

I think most creationists are having a problem with macro evolution instead of micro evolution.
Because I think they have the impression that all species are set to stone and wouldn't change- especially how humans are supposed to directly created by God instead of slowly evolving from other primates.
To have humans to arise from the beginning via abiogenesis, slowly evolving to single celled.. then to sea squirts and then to fish and then to amphibians and then to mammals... is way beyond something they could accept.

I think I have a problem with some Creationists is that they insist the world is created in 6 days, and that the Earth has only a history of 6000 years (which the later isn't even in the bible) These are the creationists that believe the bible is literal in every word.
We know that this is not true, as we can see in geology, astronomy, biology ,etc all have evidences that the universe/ planet Earth has a way longer history than 6000 years.
I'm not denying the possibility of a creator, but whether the creator created the universe in exactly 6 days.
It is still entirely possible the creator programmed the world and sort of guide it according to certain laws. Otherwise, everything in the universe would have occurred spontaneously, which makes the probability low.
I don't see how discrediting Genesis will automatically mean I deny that a creator is needed to construct the world.

 

[mattj]

I apologize for the late response. You would not believe how busy I've been this week. I'm supposed to be practicing music right now, but I've had these questions on my mind since you posted them. Plus, my 7 year old daughter recently asked me similar questions.

My responses are in the tags because this post is getting ridiculously long.

1) do you actually believe modern humans and dinosaurs co-existed

Hide

I'll take your "dinousaurs" to mean " pretty much any prehistoric creature which we find in fossils". My answer would be "to some degree yes".

I realize how strange, and foolishly-Jurasic-Park-ish that sounds. Humans running around with T-Rex. Cue the ridiculous Creation Museum images.

Do note that I find no verses in the Bible proclaiming Adam and Eve rode out of the Garden of Eden on the back of their trusty Triceratops.

Consider this though. We live along side dinosaurs today. For instance, here I am holding one I caught a few weeks ago, a gar:

He was just a little guy though.

I caught this one a few days later.

It's hard to tell because I'm not in the picture, but this one is around twice as big, well over 3 feet long, and fatter. But even this one is a juvenile.

Here's an example of the same species, living in the same rivers around here, a few years later in life:

Yes. We swim in that river.

If you click the link up there you can read up on gar. There are countless fossils of them and there are almost no differences between the fossils and the modern fish whatsoever. Here's a quick googlepics comparison:

I could say the same thing about the paddlefish, bowfin, sturgeon, those pesky snapping turtles that steal my fish, and many other fish that swim in the rivers and animals that walk the forests around here. You'd be amazed how huge they grow. The big ones are downright frightening when you're in the water with them and they're thrashing and splashing, even to an outdoorsman and fisherman like myself.

As ridiculous as the thought of "walking with dinosaurs" sounds on it's head, we do it today. Other than the fact that it goes strictly against what we are taught all throughout our school years, it really shouldn't be that odd of an idea.

and if so how can you explain the lack of fossil evidence and sheer distance in dating / rock layer of fossils found of both things?

Hide

This is an entirely reasonable question. And to be honest, I'm not sure I have a smack-down-definitive answer. But from what I do understand, this isn't as big of a difficulty as it may initially seem.

To begin with, note when the Bible says all other life was created en masse and began reproducing:

Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
...
God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day as well. However, they didn't start reproducing until after they got evicted from their apartment for not following the rules.

Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.” Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Now here's where everything gets vague. How much time took place between all those countless other plants and animals starting to reproduce and Adam and Eve starting to reproduce? Nobody knows. The Bible doesn't say. There are vague clues here and there, but nothing concrete.

It says that plants started reproducing on the "fifth day" and animals on the "sixth day", but what does "day" even mean in those verses? The traditional, historical interpretation is that "day" simply meant "a 24 hour period", that is, the time it takes for the earth to spin around to face the sun again. But note that the term is used in Genesis 1:5, before space was given dimensions, before the continents were formed, and even before the sun, moon, stars, galaxies, etc were created. It's not that I believe the God of the Bible couldn't have done all this in 6, 24 hour periods. I have no doubts he could have done it in 6 seconds. But because I don't have any reason from the text to believe that the term "day" must necessarily mean "a 24 hour period", it could mean 24 years or even 24 million years. I don't know.

And then, how long were Adam and Eve in the garden before they got kicked out? And how long did they wait before reproducing? I don't know about you, but my first priorities would be food and shelter before thinking about sex. But that's me. Just imagine how hard it must have been at first. No tools. No education. No stores. Genesis 5:3 says that Adam was 130 years old when Eve had Seth (some time after Cain and then Abel). But when did he start counting his age? Starting from the moment when he was created? Because of the Fruit of the Tree of Life he was immortal at that point. Or did he start counting the years after he was forced out of the Garden, when the years meant something?

My point is:

All other life forms had a head start on mankind. How big of a head start was it? I don't know.

Looking at the fossils we find, it looks like a pretty big lead. And the first chapters of Genesis seem to leave the door open to such a gigantic head start when it says "...Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures...", "...be fruitful and multiply..." etc, all before Adam and Eve ever figured out what those things between their legs were for. Even accounting for whatever time existed between Adam and Eve and Noah, there's no chance humans could have caught up anywhere near to where all other life was, population wise.

With this in mind, it's no wonder that we find tons upon tons of non-human fossils, and at different layers. While it doesn't fit the "traditional", "historical", "simpler" church teaching that all life was created at practically the same time and that humans got right down to business, it doesn't contradict anything in the text itself, because the text itself is fairly open ended. And honestly, I couldn't care less what the "historical", "traditional" church line is anyway. What I'm concerned with is "what does the Bible actually say?"

2) how did dinosaurs die out in your opinion?

Hide

This is another great, big "I'm not sure, but it isn't really a problem". Because we don't know how much time passed between "day three" and Noah's Flood, and we have very few details about what happened outside of Adam's family and relatives, it's entirely possible that countless species could have died off completely either before humans were ever created, depending on the meaning of "day", or some time after their creation, however long that was. Could there have been famines outside of the Garden of Eden? Plagues? After humankind left, could they have hunted some now extinct species (like we did Mammoths and Dodos)? And then, finally, there was the Flood to wipe everything else out and conveniently pack everything in mud.

But I don't think that the fact that the Bible doesn't mention those events is akin to making the claim that they never happened. The Bible is focused on Jesus, sin, redemption. It omits all kinds of historical events because it doesn't care about them. It cares about pointing people to Heaven.

3) what is your explanation for species such as a. africanus, h. erectus etc.?

Hide

I am quite skeptical of even the most learned person's ability to make sweeping statements based on fragments of fossils imprints of what used to be bones found compressed for who knows how long under literal tons of dirt. I can't discount the incredible amount of time and study that people have put into this field and these discoveries, but I really think much of it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Findings are constantly being made, prior assumptions and beliefs are constantly being challenged, and family trees are constantly being pruned and re-arranged.

What are the Ardipithecuses and Australopithecuses and Paranthropuses and the various Homos (lol)? I don't think even the experts are entirely, 100% certain. Could some of them have been early humans? Sure. Could others have been early apes? Why not. Could they and even we have changed in the amount of time between their creation and the Flood? I bet we could have. I have no reason to doubt they wouldn't have.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Fun fact: I tried looking up information on the anti-evolution argument in Japanese-- it doesn't even have its own Wikipedia page. There is a 2 line sentence mentioning it exists under the page on the theory of evolution. Discussion on this topic flat out doesn't exist. (Same with Chinese when I looked around...)

I will say that I consider myself Christian and have my doubts on the actual mechanics laid out in the theory (change seems too fast to be completely reliant on random mutations/I personally wonder if there isn't some intelligence or process in the modifications DNA makes that speeds the process), but doubting the broad frame work of evolution and laws of survival just seems silly.