The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

monosharp

J C wrote: »

....the thread is starting to take off again, because the Evolutionists have 'dusted themselves down' ... and they have regrouped to defend their invalid 'origins' explanations!!!!!

Funny enough we keep asking questions and you keep giving us silence.

Those origins explanations, the ones called abiogenesis. Yes I would be happy to debate that.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

If that is so, we welcome you, brother Creationist. Those are the key concepts of Creationism.

That is a bit disingenuous. They weren't a "key" concept of Creationism until Creationists were forced to accept that evolutionary change happens by the overwhelming evidence (The Creationist movement originally (and often still does) claimed that all species were created whole by God and no species change ever happens).

So then they said it does happen but only to a certain degree, a barrier that is not in any evolutionary theory and which Creationists can't define and only have the Bible as support.

Saying that evolutionary biologists agree with Creationism is like saying that the umpire agrees with John McEnroe when McEnroe finally admits 15 years later that the ball was in fact out. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolution from a very simple organism (Unicellular) to a more complex organism (multicellular) did not happen.

What an odd thing to say.

What do you mean "did not happen" given that you know it "does" currently happen.

You have been shown examples of this being observed today (unicellular organisms have evolved due to environmental pressure into multicellular organisms and even constructed crude skins), so what is the difference between this happening now and it happening in the past?

Turtwig

I'm also interested in a creationist response to this.

By understanding the metaphorical nature of the text you gain a deeper understanding of it and God than any literalist interpretation could hope for.

monosharp

Wicknight wrote: »

What an odd thing to say.

What do you mean "did not happen" given that you know it "does" currently happen.

Actually in fairness to him, it was me who 'agreed' with him/JC that IF unicellular organisms didn't evolve into multicellular it wouldn't disprove evolution.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

No I didn't.

My apologies.

It was monosharp who said it - post 18920:
Disproving a common ancestor would not disprove evolution.

All you evolutionists look alike, especially the Mo-berts and the Mo-nosharps.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wolfsbane, the only people who support creationism are those who began with the assumption that the bible was perfect truth and ignored anything contradictory. These people are lying to you and making an idiot of you. Science does not have any agenda, it follows the evidence and if there was the slightest shred of evidence to support creationism it would be the accepted theory but there isn't, there are just people who will say anything to avoid accepting the facts because they conflict with their religious beliefs

Edit: looking at the 9 intermediary fossils I mentioned on the last page between land mammals and whales, do you think I made them all up?

No, Sam, I'm sure you think they are really intermediates, as the propaganda assures you.

But the reality is another matter:
Whale evolution?
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution

It's hard to give much credibility to the 'interpretations' put on fossils when we see how it works:
Fossil evidence for alleged apemen—Part 2: non-Homo hominids
http://creation.com/fossil-evidence-for-alleged-apemenpart-2-non-homo-hominids
Ardipithecus kadabba
A few months after Orrorin tugenensis was announced, another early hominid candidate, from Middle Awash, Ethiopia, called Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, dated to between 5.2 and 5.8 Ma, was described in the journal Nature.25 The name of this specimen was, in 2004, elevated from subspecies status to a separate species, Ardipithecus kadabba, based on the recovery of additional fossil teeth.26 In kadabba (as in Orrorin) the fossil finds consisted of some postcranial bones, teeth, and jaw fragments, and so it is not known what the head of these creatures looked like.

The kadabba specimen is interpreted as a biped based on the characteristics of a single toe bone (a proximal foot phalanx), in particular the dorsal orientation of the proximal joint surface.27 The argument is that the toe bone’s joint surface is tilted upwards in a human-like manner, whereas in chimpanzees it tilts downwards, and so it is supposedly evidence that kadabba ‘toed off’ in a human-like manner when walking.28 However, as pointed out by Begun,

‘the same joint configuration occurs in the definitely non-bipedal late Miocene hominid Sivapithecus , and the length and curvature of this bone closely resembles those of a chimpanzee or bonobo’.29
Amazingly, the toe bone is dated several hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils, and was found in a locality 16 km away from the rest, making even famous hominid hunter Donald Johanson dubious about categorizing the toe bone with the rest of the fossils.30

From the few (eleven) fossil scraps, belonging to at least five different individuals, from five different locations,25 it seems amazing that they can all be designated as belonging to the same subspecies, and later, on the basis of finding some additional teeth,26 that the fossils can be assigned to a new species. According to Balter and Gibbons, ‘The Orrorin and Ardipithecus teams assert that each other’s fossils could represent an ancestor of chimps or other apes, rather than one of our early human ancestors or cousins.’31 Perhaps both teams are partially right, as there is little doubt that both hominids were mere apes.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm also interested in a creationist response to this.

By understanding the metaphorical nature of the text you gain a deeper understanding of it and God than any literalist interpretation could hope for.

Very interesting video. Thank you.

The guy at the start is quite right - if Genesis is God's story, then it is historical narrative. But if it is the invention of pious Jews in heathen captivity, then of course metaphor would be the only honest intent of the authors. Anything else would be a deliberate deception.

Creationists hold to the historic view of the Church - that it is historical narrative. The problems suggested in the video - supposedly conflicting accounts in Chapter 1 and 2, and the impossibility of day/night without the Sun, have been ably explained by Creationists.

Some difficulties for any Christian holding to a metaphorical view:
1. They disagree with the historic view of the Church.
2. They have a problem accounting for where metaphor leaves off and history begins - Abel? Noah? Abraham? Israel? Moses? David?
3. They have to account for the fact that Jesus and the NT writers appear to refer to Genesis as history.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a bit disingenuous. They weren't a "key" concept of Creationism until Creationists were forced to accept that evolutionary change happens by the overwhelming evidence (The Creationist movement originally (and often still does) claimed that all species were created whole by God and no species change ever happens).

So then they said it does happen but only to a certain degree, a barrier that is not in any evolutionary theory and which Creationists can't define and only have the Bible as support.

Saying that evolutionary biologists agree with Creationism is like saying that the umpire agrees with John McEnroe when McEnroe finally admits 15 years later that the ball was in fact out. :rolleyes:

In all the years I have followed up the creation science case I have never heard them deny speciation/diversification. In fact, they insisted that it was a relatively small number of animals that emerged from the Ark and that from them all the breathing animals have arisen.

There may have been an eccentric here or there who said otherwise, but I'm not aware of them.

Can you give the references?

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Very interesting video. Thank you.

The guy at the start is quite right - if Genesis is God's story, then it is historical narrative. But if it is the invention of pious Jews in heathen captivity, then of course metaphor would be the only honest intent of the authors. Anything else would be a deliberate deception.

Creationists hold to the historic view of the Church - that it is historical narrative. The problems suggested in the video - supposedly conflicting accounts in Chapter 1 and 2, and the impossibility of day/night without the Sun, have been ably explained by Creationists.

Some difficulties for any Christian holding to a metaphorical view:
1. They disagree with the historic view of the Church.
2. They have a problem accounting for where metaphor leaves off and history begins - Abel? Noah? Abraham? Israel? Moses? David?
3. They have to account for the fact that Jesus and the NT writers appear to refer to Genesis as history.

A Christian would probably be better here than me, but I'm gonna try anyway.

As I understand, they don't see the stories of Abel,Noah, etc etc as objective facts.
They also don't follow the Church; the bible is seen as the supreme authority on the message of salvation on Jesus Christ and the understanding of God. However, this does not mean that it is regarded as a scientific or literal text.
Galileo put it succinctly

The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.

It doesn't explain nature. (How could it when it contradicts itself?)
I believe, Galileo's philosophy which he got from some theologians (cannot remember who but it wasn't just one generation of them) was that if nature contradicted the teachings in the bible then it was merely the bible's interpretation that had been mistaken : the bible is interpreted by science and knowledge; not the other way around.

I've read Geophysics texts by Christians citing biblical quotes in their introductions and then dealing with science of old earth tectonics that shows how beautifully these citations can interpreted.

As for Jesus referring to the Genesis account, it's easy. He told parables all the time didn't He? Do we take these literally or do we learn the "metaphorical" lesson from them? The people at the time of Jesus passed on their teachings through stories and allegories and it is well documented that the people at the time of Jesus didn't even take these stories as objective historical facts; neither did Jesus. So, there would be no need to state to His followers
"Oh and by the way this stuff isn't to be taken literally you know"
because the culture at that time pretty much knew it wasn't meant to be.

wolfsbane

monosharp wrote: »

No it wasn't him it was me and thats not what I said.

I said without a common ancestor for 'ALL' life evolution would still be true.

Maybe life evolved from 2 separate gene pools so 50% of life from gene pool A are related to each other and the other 50% of life from gene pool B to each other.

Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense.

I picked up your clarification on the other points also:

Does Evolution require that Unicellular organisms evolved into multicellular organisms ? NO

Nope. Maybe multicellular organisms just 'popped' into existence one Friday night and they evolved into all life today.

Yes, I see how your alternate evolution works: humans and/or any other creature could have been created fully mature, but evolution would be true for the rest of the biosphere. So no matter how many species we prove were non-evolved, you could still claim evolution of the rest.

But such a scenario is not what the debate is about - it is about the either/or. Either the biosphere was created mature and has diversified (very small-scale evolution to you) or it all has evolved. Creationists are not interested in arguing about partial evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I was not asking you about the origin of life. I queried your claim, asking, Evolution could be true even if higher forms of life did not gradually arise out of lower forms??? and followed it with Can you sketch me your alternate evolution?

Let me phrase it simply:
Please sketch me an evolution in which higher forms of life did not gradually arise out of lower forms.
Nicely read wolfsbane, nowhere did I say that.

I was very specific and said 'unicellular' to 'multicellular', I did not say lower to higher.

From your post 18848:

Quote:
We deny the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower
This is something IMPLIED by Evolution, if this was disproven tomorrow it would not even change the definition of Evolution.

Quote:
, not the variation of flies or carrots. New species of fly is within the concept of creationism. Birds evolving from dinosaurs is not.
Which is an aspect of Evolution, it is not evolution itself. Again, if you proved this tomorrow it wouldn't change evolution. It would change an aspect of the theory of evolution which gets changed and corrected all the time.

Let me make it simple;
ME: higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower
YOU:if this was disproven tomorrow it would not even change the definition of Evolution

And the points I was making were that IF you disproved these things it wouldn't disprove evolution, I did not say they were not true.

Quite so. I never said you did.

Fanny Cradock

JC and Wolfsbane, I'm wondering, if you have an hour or so to spare, would you consider listening to this talk given by a chap called Earnest Lucas? He gives a talk about Genesis 1 - 3. I would be interested to hear you opinion on what he has to say.

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/FAR294%20Lucas.mp3

J C

...I came across this poem recently ... and it reminded me of this thread!!!

Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever, ’twixt that darkness and that light.

Then to side with truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ’tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.

By the light of burning martyrs, Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,
Toiling up new Calv’ries ever with the cross that turns not back;
New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.

Though the cause of evil prosper, yet the truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong;
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...I came across this poem recently ... and it reminded me of this thread!!!

Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever, ’twixt that darkness and that light.

Then to side with truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ’tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.

By the light of burning martyrs, Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,
Toiling up new Calv’ries ever with the cross that turns not back;
New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.

Though the cause of evil prosper, yet the truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong;
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own.

Admit it you were playing Call of Duty!!!

Edit < Wrong bloody vid..apologies...one minute..

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, Sam, I'm sure you think they are really intermediates, as the propaganda assures you.

But the reality is another matter:
Whale evolution?
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution

From that nonsense article

For such an organ to have evolved, random mutations must have formed the right enzymes to make the right lipids, and other mutations must have caused the lipids to be deposited in the right place and shape. A gradual step-by-step evolution of the organ is not feasible, because until the lipids were fully formed and at least partly in the right place and shape, they would have been of no use. Therefore, natural selection would not have favored incomplete intermediate forms.

This is just the tired old irreducible complex argument again which ignores the fact that such features of the species can have other functions.


However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable.

Not only is this not true but picking the pelvis is a pretty bad example since we can see from the fossil record the pelvis changing. Despite the assertion that a smaller weaker pelvis would not support a land animal the fossil record contradicts this. Equally some species of whales still have pelvises, which have evolved to be very small and light weight.

So not only is this article not accurate (I imagine it is going on very old out of date data), but it raises a point that contradicts the premise of the article.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3

Case in point, he said that in 1963! And this article is taken from a book published in 1999, nearly 40 years later. We now not only have transitional forms, we have lots of them.

This demonstrates the blatant anti-science, anti-truth of the Creationist movement, not interested in truth only interested in presenting their lies in an effort to confuse school children.

And these lies and misrepresentation seems to have worked a blinder on you Wolfsbane, as you obviously believed this article seriously contradict whale evolution.

You are always going on that you truth the Creationist movement because they are Christians and you don't true science because you think it lies for the purposes of materialism, given that not a day seems to go by on this thread when an actual lie presented by Creationists isn't exposed (not simply another interpretation but an out right lie) exactly how long do you continue to trust the Creationist movement?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

In all the years I have followed up the creation science case I have never heard them deny speciation/diversification. In fact, they insisted that it was a relatively small number of animals that emerged from the Ark and that from them all the breathing animals have arisen.

There may have been an eccentric here or there who said otherwise, but I'm not aware of them.

Can you give the references?

You have it the other way around. Creationists such as Clark suggested rapid speciation as early as 1929, but were ignored and ridiculed by the wider Creationist movement as appeasing "evolutionists", despite Clark being quite against evolution.

Have you read book by Whitcomb and Morris? They started published in 1961 and their books were considered "landmark" Creationist books. They explain that the Ark would have to have carried 2 of every species of land animal alive today and provides measurements that they feel could facilitate this while also criticising the classification of species by modern biologists because it obviously produces far to many species.

Right through the 70s Whitcomb and co were trying to figure out quite inventive maths to get all species on the Ark. One theory that was popular for a while was the idea that only clean animals would have been on the Ark.

The idea of rapid speciation was only brought back into fashion in the Creationist movement in the early 80s when it really ridiculous even to ignorant Creationists to argue that the Ark could have held a member of all land animal species.

It fits the MO of the Creationist movement pretty well, argue one theory to death until it becomes utterly ridiculous to keep arguing it and then change to another theory hoping no one notices.

marco_polo

Wicknight wrote: »

Case in point, he said that in 1963! And this article is taken from a book published in 1999, nearly 40 years later. We now not only have transitional forms, we have lots of them.

Indeed:

Soul Winner

.

:pac:

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I see how your alternate evolution works: humans and/or any other creature could have been created fully mature, but evolution would be true for the rest of the biosphere. So no matter how many species we prove were non-evolved, you could still claim evolution of the rest.

Well more or less what I said but I also agree with what you said.

The important thing to remember here is this is a big IF conversation we're having.

The original and main point I wanted to get across was that Abiogenesis = Evolution. So combining them togeather is ignorant and completely nonsensical.

Evolution does not require abiogenesis, even though I accept both I will not defend both under the false presumption that 'evidence' against one is evidence against the other.

God magicked simple life into existence does not disprove evolution, it disproves abiogenesis.

But such a scenario is not what the debate is about - it is about the either/or. Either the biosphere was created mature and has diversified (very small-scale evolution to you) or it all has evolved. Creationists are not interested in arguing about partial evolution.

They aren't NOW because its absolutely irrefutable beyond any doubt. They did in the past absolutely 100% oppose any kind of evolution ('diversification')

wolfsbane wrote:

Let me make it simple;
ME: higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower
YOU:if this was disproven tomorrow it would not even change the definition of Evolution

Yes, and ?

Are we mixing up our 'highers' and our 'lowers' ? Because I don't consider human ancestors for example Lucy etc to be 'lower' forms of life.

Forms of lower-life

ALGAE

These organisms are found throughout the world. Simple algaes exist in the Monera and Protista kingdoms. Other algaes are plants. They constitute single-celled or simple multicellular photosynthetic organisms that are important producers-produce their own food by using energy from sunlight to synthesize complex molecules from carbon dioxide and water-both in sea and fresh water. Algae range in size from microscopic organisms to giant seaweeds several hundred feet in length. They contain chlorophyll and other pigments which give them a variety of colors.

DIATOMS

Diatoms are algal protists belonging to the plant-like (algae) portion of the Protista kingdom. Some exist as single cells, others are found as groups or colonies. More than 15,000 forms of diatoms are known to exist. Diatoms have silica-impregnated cell walls.

FUNGI

Fungi have many varieties. Included among these are molds, mildews, mushrooms, yeast, rust, and smut. Fungi are not able to manufacture their own food; they contain no chlorophyll.

MOLDS

One important category of fungi is molds. This group of fungi feeds entirely on organic matter. They decompose carbohydrates, such as sugars, starches, and fats, as well as proteins and other substances.

BACTERIA

Bacteria are another important class of prokaryotes in the Monera kingdom. Bacteria cells range in size from less than 1 to 10 microns in length and from 0.2 to 1 micron in width. Despite their small size, it has been estimated that the total weight of all bacteria in the world exceeds that of all other organisms combined.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

You have it the other way around. Creationists such as Clark suggested rapid speciation as early as 1929, but were ignored and ridiculed by the wider Creationist movement as appeasing "evolutionists", despite Clark being quite against evolution.

Have you read book by Whitcomb and Morris? They started published in 1961 and their books were considered "landmark" Creationist books. They explain that the Ark would have to have carried 2 of every species of land animal alive today and provides measurements that they feel could facilitate this while also criticising the classification of species by modern biologists because it obviously produces far to many species.

Right through the 70s Whitcomb and co were trying to figure out quite inventive maths to get all species on the Ark. One theory that was popular for a while was the idea that only clean animals would have been on the Ark.

The idea of rapid speciation was only brought back into fashion in the Creationist movement in the early 80s when it really ridiculous even to ignorant Creationists to argue that the Ark could have held a member of all land animal species.

It fits the MO of the Creationist movement pretty well, argue one theory to death until it becomes utterly ridiculous to keep arguing it and then change to another theory hoping no one notices.

I don't know who is feeding you this rubbish, but thankfully I have a copy to hand of:
Whitcomb, J.C. (Jr) and Morris, H.M., The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Philadelphia, PA, 1974. Mine is the 18th (November 1974) reprint of the original 1961 issue.

They put the same case as we do today - that diversification has led to all the species we have today from a much smaller number of kinds that emerged from the Ark. See pp66-69.

They did not teach that the Ark would have to have carried 2 of every species of land animal alive today , nor did they teach that only clean animals would have been on the Ark.

Looks like the evolutionists have been lying to you, my friend.

wolfsbane

monosharp said:

Quote:
But such a scenario is not what the debate is about - it is about the either/or. Either the biosphere was created mature and has diversified (very small-scale evolution to you) or it all has evolved. Creationists are not interested in arguing about partial evolution.
They aren't NOW because its absolutely irrefutable beyond any doubt. They did in the past absolutely 100% oppose any kind of evolution ('diversification')

As I told Wickie, I have never encountered this in all my years of familiarity with Creationism. Someone lied to him about Whitcomb and Morris and I've set him straight on that. He mentioned Clark had trouble with other creationists over rapid speciation, but I can find nothing on that to see what the problem was.

Perhaps you can back up your claim that creationists did in the past absolutely 100% oppose any kind of evolution ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Let me make it simple;
ME: higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower
YOU:if this was disproven tomorrow it would not even change the definition of Evolution
Yes, and ?

Are we mixing up our 'highers' and our 'lowers' ? Because I don't consider human ancestors for example Lucy etc to be 'lower' forms of life.

I assumed you allowed that Lucy in turn came from a less human ancestor, and so on - right back to your list of lower-lifes. Are you saying Lucy had no ancestors? That Lucy was created fully mature?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

From that nonsense article

For such an organ to have evolved, random mutations must have formed the right enzymes to make the right lipids, and other mutations must have caused the lipids to be deposited in the right place and shape. A gradual step-by-step evolution of the organ is not feasible, because until the lipids were fully formed and at least partly in the right place and shape, they would have been of no use. Therefore, natural selection would not have favored incomplete intermediate forms.

This is just the tired old irreducible complex argument again which ignores the fact that such features of the species can have other functions.


However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable.

Not only is this not true but picking the pelvis is a pretty bad example since we can see from the fossil record the pelvis changing. Despite the assertion that a smaller weaker pelvis would not support a land animal the fossil record contradicts this. Equally some species of whales still have pelvises, which have evolved to be very small and light weight.

So not only is this article not accurate (I imagine it is going on very old out of date data), but it raises a point that contradicts the premise of the article.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3

Case in point, he said that in 1963! And this article is taken from a book published in 1999, nearly 40 years later. We now not only have transitional forms, we have lots of them.

This demonstrates the blatant anti-science, anti-truth of the Creationist movement, not interested in truth only interested in presenting their lies in an effort to confuse school children.

And these lies and misrepresentation seems to have worked a blinder on you Wolfsbane, as you obviously believed this article seriously contradict whale evolution.

You are always going on that you truth the Creationist movement because they are Christians and you don't true science because you think it lies for the purposes of materialism, given that not a day seems to go by on this thread when an actual lie presented by Creationists isn't exposed (not simply another interpretation but an out right lie) exactly how long do you continue to trust the Creationist movement?

If the author had left it with the quote from 1963, you would have a point. But he goes on to deal with modern claims. The claimed new transitional fossils are as imaginative as the older ones.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mine is the 18th (November 1974) reprint of the original 1961 issue.

Groan :rolleyes:

Like I already said the Creationist position changed after it became utterly ridiculous to continue to argue the position that the Ark contained all species of land animal and Creationists such as Morris and Whitcomb adopted the "kind" model original proposed in 1929. By 1974 the book was on its second or third edition as far as I know.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

If the author had left it with the quote from 1963, you would have a point.

He did leave it. Does he correct the quote at all? Nope.

He makes a quote from 1963 as if it is valid and justifies his point. It doesn't, in 1963 the evidence for transitional forms between land mammals and whales was weaker than it is today, but the author leaves it stand.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But he goes on to deal with modern claims.

No he doesn't, he goes on to deal with very old claims, again completely ignoring all modern evidence for the evolution of land animals to whales, evidence that was well known in 1999.

It is a blatant attempt at perverting a quote from a biologist to serve an ideological aim.

Seriously Wolfsbane, how many lies before you stop trusting these guys?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

monosharp said:

As I told Wickie, I have never encountered this in all my years of familiarity with Creationism. Someone lied to him about Whitcomb and Morris and I've set him straight on that.

Admittedly I don't have copy of the original 1961 1st edition (and apparently neither do you), but I do have passages quoted from it by Creationist. So it is entirely possible that these Creationists are lying to me, but then that sort of demonstrates my point. Win win as it were. :pac:

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

Perhaps you can back up your claim that creationists did in the past absolutely 100% oppose any kind of evolution ?

Are you saying that in the past they didn't and some people still don't ?

I think you might need to do some googling, there are more 'branches' of Creationism then YEC or OEC.

I assumed you allowed that Lucy in turn came from a less human ancestor, and so on - right back to your list of lower-lifes.

Yes, and ?

I made the point that if God magicked early mammals into existence, that they didn't come from lower (multicellular/unicellular) forms of life and then evolved into us then it wouldn't disprove Evolution.

Take Lucy for example, start at her, come to us. Look at what happened, look at the evidence. This is evolution.

Are you saying Lucy had no ancestors? That Lucy was created fully mature?

Of course not. But it doesn't matter to the evolution from Lucy to us whether she was magicked into existence or not.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Admittedly I don't have copy of the original 1961 1st edition (and apparently neither do you), but I do have passages quoted from it by Creationist. So it is entirely possible that these Creationists are lying to me, but then that sort of demonstrates my point. Win win as it were. :pac:

So let me have the references. Whoever said it was lying, and I'll be happy to say so.

wolfsbane

monosharp said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Perhaps you can back up your claim that creationists did in the past absolutely 100% oppose any kind of evolution ?
Are you saying that in the past they didn't and some people still don't ?

Yes, with my original caveat that some eccentric may be the exception. I'm still waiting for proof to the contrary.

I think you might need to do some googling, there are more 'branches' of Creationism then YEC or OEC.

Yes, if we use the term Creationism of OEC, you would be right. But since the Creationism debated on this thread is that represented by JC and myself and some other brethren, I am speaking only of YEC.

The YEC creationist movement has always held to diversification (microevolution), so to accuse them of changing their colours on it is plain mistaken on your part and downright lying by your sources.

Quote:
I assumed you allowed that Lucy in turn came from a less human ancestor, and so on - right back to your list of lower-lifes.
Yes, and ?

That would then be saying we came from those lower forms - which you said would not be necessary.

I made the point that if God magicked early mammals into existence, that they didn't come from lower (multicellular/unicellular) forms of life and then evolved into us then it wouldn't disprove Evolution.

Quite so. But you went on to claim This [higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower] is something IMPLIED by Evolution, if this was disproven tomorrow it would not even change the definition of Evolution.

Take Lucy for example, start at her, come to us. Look at what happened, look at the evidence. This is evolution.

I think the comment of evolutionist Michael Lemonick says it all:
“The only certainty in this data-poor, imagination-rich, endlessly fascinating field is that there are plenty of surprises left to come.”

Your faith in Lucy being an ancestor needs re-examination:
Farewell to “Lucy”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/18/farewell-lucy

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan :rolleyes:

Like I already said the Creationist position changed after it became utterly ridiculous to continue to argue the position that the Ark contained all species of land animal and Creationists such as Morris and Whitcomb adopted the "kind" model original proposed in 1929. By 1974 the book was on its second or third edition as far as I know.

Mine is merely a reprint, not a new edition.

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

JC and Wolfsbane, I'm wondering, if you have an hour or so to spare, would you consider listening to this talk given by a chap called Earnest Lucas? He gives a talk about Genesis 1 - 3. I would be interested to hear you opinion on what he has to say.

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/FAR294%20Lucas.mp3

Thanks for that site, Fanny. I've listened to some of it and hope to complete it this week. Good arguments to get my teeth into.