Fossil Called Missing Link

How do you interpret the creation account in Genesis to be consistent with the 'evidence'? I can only assume you use the 'moral fairytale' hermeneutic.

 

Which brings back to the real question of why isn't there a 24 hour Maccas in the outer suburbs of Newcastle...

OOPS, sorry, wrong question...

If evolutionist recruitionists want to get enough converts from the BB so they win their set of steak-knives (I dunno, but it sure seems like a competition is going on here sometimes )...they'll have to come up with a reason why they agree with science when it says Genesis (and related passages) are wrong (parable/allegory/fable/insert cop-out word of the week here), then claim science is wrong when it points out that someone dying for sin and being raised again just isn't on...

Can't really have your Tiktaalik roseae and eat it too can you people? (A pity really because I understand they tasted like a Big Mac... )

 

That's surely the real reason we no longer have any giant catfish mudskippers. We ate them all.

 

Strangely they present evidence and you do not.</font>[/QUOTE] Odd assertion by one that rejects an eyewitness account of creation... found in Genesis. </font>[/QUOTE]I do not reject the account in Genesis, I reject the intepretation of it that makes it inconsistent with the evidence. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope. A literal intepretation of it presupposing supernaturalism is NOT inconsistent with the evidence.

What you reject is an interpretation of it that is inconsistent with the evidence as interpretted according to naturalism/materialism. Sorry but scripture overwhelmingly establishes supernaturalism as "truth" over and against naturalism.

 

Magnetic Pole,
You ask how one can draw a conclusion without reading an article. The answer is its the Bible compared to a theory and mindset that has been disproven long ago. As the phrase goes on the blue collar comedy tour, "Heres your sign."

 

Paul of Eugene,
You said and I quote, "we faithful servents of God who accept evolution", that my friend is called an oximoron. Get your nose out of the digit head journals that dont know what they are talking about, read Genesis, and see how God created things. Heres your sign.

 

I have to surmise that God would be equally unimpressed with those who dismiss the Bible and His Word without even considering it, as UTEOTW, and others here, are with those of you who see ignorance as some sort of virtue.

As a biochemistry major, I can state unequivocally that evolution is true. Biology makes no sense without it.

Anyone who can proudly claim to be so ignorant must be afraid of the truth. Otherwise, they would read the Nature article and explain what they think the flaws in it are.

 

Brett,
A biochemistry major, wow, that is really going to change my perception of the Bible. As a microbiologist, I say evolution is impossible. Come see me when you finish your gen ed classes.

 

What book did you get that from?

 

Funny, no one has published anything about disproving anything. Here's your sign back!

 

James_Newman

Hey bro'!!! How are you?

Wayne

 

Brother, God is too good to me! How bout yourself? You going to come visit us when we get our building finished?

 

Certainly!

How long till it is done?

 

It's neat that there is a qualified biologist who supports creationism here. If you have scientific grounds for rejecting evolution I hope you will post them on the Science board here since I haven't seen any convincing evidence against it that wasn't immediately shot down.

 

Both, actually, if you think the Bible rules out evolution.

 

So many comments, so little time...

Saturneptune said...

"You just dont get it. The basic point is this. No one has to read your article. It is a man made article based on secular and faulty assumptions."

How do you even know what is in it if you cannot even be brought to look at it? Just what "faulty assumptions" do you imagine, without even reading, are in there?

"I have no idea what education or background you have, or how a researcher makes a living, but there is an element of missing common sense here."

Is that supposed to be some sort of slight of me? Well, anyhow, here are a list of published papers, with links, from where I work. It seems that no one has updated the site in the last couple of years, though. In addition, since this is just a sampling, none of the papers I have authored are there. Oh well. Give me twenty years and your computer may be running on electrons that I make from coal cleanly.

http://psdf.southernco.com/tech_papers.html

Now what part of following the evidence to its only logical conclusion is "missing common sense?"

"Believing God created everything is one of those subjects that takes the least faith of any subject. Look around. See what has been created. See the order."

One more time...

No one is denying that God is the creator. The issue is how the handiwork of the creation reveals to us His methods.

"It is quite clear each different animal was created as a seperate act, not some osmosis or gradual evolution."

Absolutely false.

There are innumerable details preserved in living organisms and in the fossil record that can ONLY be explained in light of evolution. Period. Any other answer can only give arbitrary and capricious "answers."

 

After I pointed out that no one seems to be interested in even reading something that might challenge their opinions, ScottJ said

" You answer yourself."

I assume that he is saying that I did not read his link. Well that is obviouslt not true because I responded to some of the details in the link.

He followed that by saying

" Yes... and that neither proves nor disproves that any of them were transitional to any other species."

in response to a lifted quote from me about there being many species in the fossil record.

Let's look at this. We are talking about tetrapod evolution. The theory says that tetrapods evolved from fish.

So we can make a prediction that if we look in the fossil record that we should find animals that are intermediate between fish and land animals.

So we look and what do we find? We find a whole series of animals that display a mix of fish and amphibian features. Some are mostly fish. Some are very mixed up. Some are mostly amphibian.

But what is predicted to be there IS there.

Now, in your paradigm, just why do we find these fossils which are intermediate in form between fish and amphibian?

Yeah, yeah, I know your answer... They are merely individual creations which have gone extinct. "Big whoop tee do" I think someone said.

So here comes the fun part. Whenever we find these creatures with a blend of features from different types of animals, it always seems that they are blends that have been predicted from evolution.

These blends are always blends of organisms that evolved from one into another.

Why is this in your paradigm? Why is it that you cannot show me fossils with a blend of features that does not fit the evolutionary paradigm?

Are you trying to tell me that God only made chimeras that fit in with evolution for some strange reason?

And you always want to talk about "metaphysical assumptions."

 

And then Pete said

"If evolutionist recruitionists want to get enough converts from the BB so they win their set of steak-knives..."

Nope.

There is no desire for converts.

My sincere hope is to stop honest but deluded folks who are unwitting participants in a big lie from doing any more harm.

saturneptune then said

"Paul of Eugene, You said and I quote, "we faithful servents of God who accept evolution", [Laugh] that my friend is called an oximoron. Get your nose out of the digit head journals that dont know what they are talking about, read Genesis, and see how God created things. Heres your sign.[/]"

Is there some sort of bitter irony in misspelling "oxymoron" while insulting someone? I cannot neither type not spell so I may neven know.

If these experts who have examined the evidence first hand "dont know what they are talking about" then maybe you should enlighten them. Submit the truth to their journals. Prove you point with facts instead of unfounded assumptions.

Brett then said

"I have to surmise that God would be equally unimpressed with those who dismiss the Bible and His Word without even considering it, as UTEOTW, and others here, are with those of you who see ignorance as some sort of virtue."

I appreciate the gist of your comment but I am sorry that you think that some of us are dissmissing God's word. I assure you that we are not.

 

This is a debate that is interesting, but fruitless in our Christian walks. It's arguing something Scriptural that just isn't there. The Bible does not specifically say how God reformed the Earth, neither does it say what was here before that time.

"Evolution" is a word that has legitimate uses for things other than macro-evolution. For instance, you can look around you in the world today and see micro-evolution taking place even within your lifetime. (Take a look at Galapagos and the changes that take place in animals there in just one or two of their generations.)

Now, my own personal convictions are that the world as we know it was created in six literal days. But, any speculation about what was here before is just that: Speculation. Also, the Bible does not rule out the day-age theory, theistic evolution, nor many other theories of creation. (I just don't believe 'em!)

Did man evolve from a monkey? God created man in his own image. Did man change and "evolve" over time? Obviously. Look around at people; they're not all the same.