Search Members

[SEEKING]

Quote (bodhitharta @ July 29 2009,12:32)

Are you under the wrath of God? If not tell me why not?

1Th 5:9  For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

[SEEKING]

Quote (chosenone @ July 18 2009,23:18)

NH.   Haven't found the scripture yet?

Mat 12:15  Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all
Mat 12:16  and ordered them not to make him known.
Mat 12:17  This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah:
Mat 12:18  “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.

Luk 2:29  “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word;
Luk 2:30  for my eyes have seen your salvation
Luk 2:31  that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
Luk 2:32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel.”

Act 26:23  that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”

[SEEKING]

Quote (datguy @ July 13 2009,09:45)

A friend (Trinitarian) used the word Omniscient to describe Jesus Christ. Is he really all knowing? For someone who believes in the trinity the answer will be “Yes.” I believe the answer is “No.” Christ speaking to his disciples said he doesn't know the Hour he shall return? Mark 13:32. If he truly is God, how can he not know?

He apparently does not know who is assigned to sit at his right and left hand either –

Mat 20:23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

[SEEKING]

Stu,July wrote:

[/quote]

“Seeking, tell me how your creationist idea accounts for the fact that humans have only been around for 180,000 years, but the first life was here 4,000,000,000 years ago.  It is pretty obvious that all life did not appear at the same time.  Actually if you stretch out your arms side to side, and the total length from fingertip to fingertip represents the history of the earth, then the entire history of humans is contained within a single scrape of a nail file on one end.

To extend that question, how does it account for the persistent, repeated appearance of new species throughout geological time?”

Stuart

My concept of the beginning of things is that I credit the beginning impetus to God. When the beginning was I do not know. I see no need to adopt the 6000 year age of earth to be “Biblical” if the statement that to God 1000 years is as a day etc. is true. His timing is not mans.

Man, at the hands of science and scientists is simply unwrapping for our understanding the vastness of what God began. I do not believe we have touched the hem of the garment.

If the following is your definition of “species” I am not certain what you refer to as “new species.” If there is no interbreeding of the individuals from species to species, that would seem to limit evolution.

Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Seeking

[SEEKING]

Quote (Stu @ July 10 2009,18:18)

Seeking Progress: You now accept that there was life in the precambrian. Indeed you must accept that your statement No life below the Cambrian is a lie. Stuart

I admit to a lack of complete information. One cell life forms apparently do exist precambrian. Personally, I did not mean to lie but did go by incomplete information.

Seeking

[SEEKING]

Stu,July wrote:

[/quote]
Stu's source
the so-called Ediacara fauna, are found in strata of .59 to .7 Ba age. The first mineralized fossils appear after the Ediacaran, but before Cambrian begins at around 580 – 590 my; they comprise ambiguous parts, possibly denticles and plates and tubes of unknown affinity and putative calcareous algae

Source Seeking cited
(Below that is the Precambrian, with no fossils other than an occasional algae.)

No lie there. I shant go farther. Your source lacks precision as is obvious in its use of words like “ambigious parts” and “unknown affinity.” We conclude with “putative” – commonly accepted or supposed, assumed to exist or have existed.By whom? You have some solid stuff there.

Quote

Wow! Two feet eh?

Almost as phenominal as “ambigious parts” and “unknown affinity” “commonly accepted” and “assumed to exist” isn't it.

Quote

There is plenty ‘leading up to them’.  It just hasn’t fossilised so well because the organisms did not have much in the way of hard body parts.

Well isn't that convenient. Could we say as well, “not much proof.”

Seeking

[SEEKING]

Quote (Stu @ July 09 2009,22:30)

pp.27-30 of what creationist book of lies? Stuart

Specifically, which of these posted statements are lies? Or rather, is Stu the liar!

Sudden appearance of life. The lowest strata containing fossils is the Cambrian. (Below that is the Precambrian, with no fossils other than an occasional algae.) Called the “Cambrian explosion” by scientists, it is a sudden appearance of billions of fossils of over a thousand different life forms.

Yet they are all distinct species, with nothing leading up to them. Every major life group (phyla) has been found in the Cambrian strata.

This situation is contrary to evolutionary theory, but quite nicely agrees with what happened during the Genesis Flood. For example, plants would have been washed into higher levels, but their seeds could be found in the lower levels.—p. 27.

No life below the Cambrian. Below the Cambrian, in the Precambrian, essentially nothing living is to be found.

But above it, in the Cambrian, are over 1,500 different species, including one which is two-feet long.—pp. 28, 30.

[SEEKING]

Sudden appearance of life. The lowest strata containing fossils is the Cambrian. (Below that is the Precambrian, with no fossils other than an occasional algae.) Called the “Cambrian explosion” by scientists, it is a sudden appearance of billions of fossils of over a thousand different life forms.

Yet they are all distinct species, with nothing leading up to them. Every major life group (phyla) has been found in the Cambrian strata.

This situation is contrary to evolutionary theory, but quite nicely agrees with what happened during the Genesis Flood. For example, plants would have been washed into higher levels, but their seeds could be found in the lower levels.—p. 27.

No life below the Cambrian. Below the Cambrian, in the Precambrian, essentially nothing living is to be found.

But above it, in the Cambrian, are over 1,500 different species, including one which is two-feet long.—pp. 28, 30.

[SEEKING]

Stu,July wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

Well why did you not just post that little bit then?

Because the scientific proof against evolution theory is copius.

Quote

You don't actually understand any of it, you are just fishing for my interpretation

In your dreams! No need to “fish” for your thoughts. You have vainly repeated them often.

Quote

That is a sign that perhaps you are not sure whether you should really trust creationist sources.

Now, not only do you live in a fantasy world, you have become a prophet.

Quote

Fossils are extremely rare anyway

Of course Stu is right, 1/4 million is not to many –

“We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.

Quote

Have a look at some real science for a minute:

Stu shines again. We have “real science” and the other sciences. And guess who's is real. Stu's of course.

Seeking

[SEEKING]

Quote (Stu @ July 09 2009,03:14)

Were you trying to make a point? What was it? Stuart

Quote

If there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, there has been no evolution! all creatures which did not become extinct are essentially identical both in fossil form and in their living counterparts today! This is a major point. No species evolution has occurred! The fossils provide no evidence of species evolution! But WITHOUT transitional forms there can be NO evolution for THAT itself IS what evolution is all about! Evolution is not copper changing into sulpher, it is not air changing into sunlight, nor is it wolves changing into German shepherds. It would be a true species change. Evolution is one basic type of plant or animal changing into another basic type of plant or animal (apple trees into oak trees or goats into cows). There should be fossil evidence of those changes. The evidence would be “transitional forms” filling the “gaps” between the basic types. But such transitions are nowhere to be found. DARWIN'S GREAT CONCERN Over a hundred years ago, *Charles Darwin recognized the importance of the problem of fossil gaps. Realizing that those gaps immensely weakened his general theory, he wrote this: “This perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” *Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 6th edition (1956), pp. 292-293. Since his time, a major campaign has for decades been underway to close up those “imperfections,” but the hundreds upon thousands of fossils which have been found and examined only reveal with deeper clarity and distinctness merely the species we now have today, plus some extinct ones.

Allow me to summarize for you, continually science – specifically the fossil record -concludes NO EVOLUTION.
Science has disproved its possibility.

Seeking

[SEEKING]

Not3in1,July wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

Tell me, have you been able to “…put to death the deeds of the body…”? Keith tells us that this idea is available to all who “believe”, because through Christ all things are possible – right? Is it really possible to GO AND SIN NO MORE??  Hmmmm. Was Jesus setting us up for failure?

We have a goal and an advocate when we fall short –

1Jn 2:1  My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Rom 6:4  We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

I understand that Paul struggled when he evaluated himself in light of the law

  Rom 7:24  Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

He also recognized his source of salvation and freedom from condemnation along with his new goal and potential

   Rom 8:1  There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:2  For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3  For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4  in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

With the blessing of the indwelling Spirit I progress in my walk. Over time, I become more Christlike, and if you would, sinless. Never totally free from sin I confess and trust my advocate Jesus.

2Co 3:17  Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
2Co 3:18  And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

Ongoing sanctification  and transformation is a process and I am successful ONLY AS GOD WORKS IN ME.

2Co 3:18  And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

Blessiings,

Seeking

[SEEKING]

FOSSILS AND STRATA Part 3

“7 – The Cambrian and Precambrian Problem, ” at the end of this chapter.

STROMATOLITESThe only macrofossils that are of widespread occurrence in the Precambrian are stromatolites. These are reef-like remnants usually thought to have been formed from precipitated mineral matter on microbial communities, primarily blue-green algae, growing by photosynthesis. So stromatolites are remnants of chemical formationsand never were alive! The “3.8 billion-year-old” Isua outcrop in Greenland was previously believed to contain the oldest evidence of life. Then in 1981 it was discoveredthat the evidence was nothing more than weathered crystals of calcium magnesium carbonates:

“Further analysis of the world's oldest rocks has confirmed that microscopic inclusions are not the fossilised remains of living cells; instead they are crystals of dolomite-type carbonates, rusted by water that has seeped into the rock.” *Nigel Henbest, ” 'Oldest Cells' are Only Weathered Crystals,” in New Scientist, October 15, 1981, p. 164.

Two years later, an update report in New Scientist on “the world's oldest (Precambrian) rocks” in Greenland said this:

“Geologists have found no conclusive evidence of life in these Greenland rocks.” *Chris Peat and *Will Diver, “First Signs of Life on Earth,” in New Scientist, September 16, 1983, pp. 776-781.

Evolutionists used to claim that “heat in the rocks” destroyed the fossils below the Cambrian level, but more recent studies reveal that that is just not true. If the animal life was there, we should be able to find it. But instead, almost nothing is to be found below the Cambrian strata.

BARRENNESS EVERYWHEREThere are great stretches of Precambrian sedimentary rocks that could and should have preserved the common ancestors of the diverse and complex Cambrian lifeif such evolutionary ancestors ever existed

“The introduction of a variety of organisms in the early Cambrian, including such complex forms of the arthropods as the trilobites, is surprising . . The introduction of abundant organisms in the record would not be so surprising if they were so simple. Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years old, and yet be totally absent from rocks in the previous 2 billion years? . . If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling.” *Marshall Kay and *Edwin Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History, p. 102.

*George says that the problem would be easily solved if Creation was acceptable, but assuming an evolutionary basis of the emergence of lifethe Cambrian explosion is an evolutionary crisis.

“Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Precambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.” *T. Neville George, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” in Science Progress, January 1960, p. 5.

Thus we find in the rocks evidence not of evolution, but of sudden creation.

For additional information see the quotation supplement, “7 – The Cambrian and Precambrian Problem, ” in the appendix.

CAMBRIAN-PRECAMBRIAN SUMMARYTo summarize the situation: (1) In the Cambrian and on up, we find millions upon millions of varied types of fossilized life forms. Below the Cambrian, we find next to nothing; and most of that is clearly inorganic materials. Nearly all of those Precambrian deposits are spheres or rods from colloidal salts which have dried out, or similar inorganic substances.

In the Cambrian, we find thateven in its deepest fossil-rich depositsthe fossil remains of life forms show themselves to be separate, distinct, diversified, and enormous in quantity. Scientists have remarked on how there seems to be a sudden vast quantity of living creatures as soon as the Cambrian begins. All this favors the concept of Creation and a Genesis Flood, not that of slowly-occurring evolution over millions of years.

6 – NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES

THE GAP PROBLEMIn this section we will deal with three specific problems, but we will frequently intermingle them in the discussion:

(1) There are no transitional species preceding or leading up to the first multi-celled creatures that appear in the Cambrian, the lowest stratum level.

(2) There are no transitional species elsewhere in the fossil record.

(3) The species that appear in the fossils are frequently found in many different strata.

(4) The great majority of the species found in the fossils are alive today.

NO TRANSITIONSThe Cambrian explosion is the first major problem with the fossil record. The lack of transitions is the second. But of all the problems, this lack of transitional creatureshalfway between different speciesis, for the evolutionist, probably the biggest single crisis in the geologic column. Indeed, it is one of the biggest of the many crises in evolutionary theory!

“Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them.” *D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.

Throughout the fossils, we find no transitions from one kind of creature to another, instead, only individual, distinctive plant or animal kinds.

“It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution.” *G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.

And, to make matters worse, in the fossil record we find the very same creatures that we have today, plus a few extinct types which died out before our time! Neither now nor earlier are there transitional forms, halfway between true species.

“When we examine a series of fossils of any age we may pick out one and say with confidence, 'This is a crustacean'or starfish, or a brachiopod, or annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be.” *A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 100.

In the rock strata, we find horses, tigers, fish, insects, but no transitional forms. For example, we find large horses and small horses, but nothing that is part horse and part something else.

After giving years to a careful examination of the fossil record, comparing it with that of species alive today, a famous biologist on the staff of the Smithsonian Institute wrote these words:

“All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic column] . . Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint.” *A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 114.

“From the tangible evidence that we now have been able to discover, we are forced to the conclusion that all the major groups of animals at the very first held just about the same relation to each other that they do today. ” *Op, cit., p. 211.

FOSSIL GAPSThis glaring fact is a repudiation of evolutionary theory. Evolutionists even have a name for the problem: they call it “fossil gaps.” No creatures that are half fish and half bird, or half pig and half cow are to be found; only distinct animal and plant types such as we know today.

For example, let us imagine that you wanted to do research on the ancestry of the horse. You would search the fossil collections, and you would read the thousands of pages written about what others have found. When you were finished, you would find that all that horses have ever beennow and earlieris just horses! They have evolved into nothing else, they came from nothing else; they have always just been horses; no more, no less. Just as tod
ay, you would find that, in the past, there have been varieties of horsesbig ones and little onesbut they all were still horses, with no half-horse-half-cow transitional forms among them.

A related problem is the fact that great numbers of fossils span across many strata, supposedly covering millions of years. This means that, throughout the fossil record, those species made no changes during those “millions of years.”

THE OCTOPUSHere is an excellent example of what we are talking about: The squid and octopus are the most complex of the invertebrates (animals without backbones). Checking carefully through the fossil record, you will find only squid and octopi; nothing else. There was nothing evolved or evolving about them; they were always just squid and octopi. (You will also find an extinct species, called the nautiloids. But they seem to have been even more complex!)

Checking into this more carefully, you will find that octopi first appear quite early in the fossil strata. The reason for that would be simple enough: When an octopus is frightened, it may curl up in a cave or corner someplace, or it may shoot out quickly using jets of water. For this reason, some octopi would be buried early, while others would be buried in higher strata.

Checking still farther, you will find that the octopus is found in nearly every stratum from bottom to top! Many octopi continued to jet their way to the top of the waters as they rose.

(Later, after the Flood was finished, the balance of nature worked against the nautiloids and they were devoured by their enemies. Today there are none. Darwin's “survival of the fittest” (the fittest will survive better than the others) apparently did not apply to the nautiloids, which were distinctly different than the octopi and squid, but apparently more capable than either.)

Checking still farther, you will find that octopi and squid in all strata are identical to octopi and squid today.

In chapter 13, Natural Selection, the marvelous eye of the octopus is discussed in greater detail.

For additional information see quotation supplement, “8 – No Transition Amid the Gaps.”

ABRUPT APPEARANCE

CLICK TO ENLARGE

MISSING LINKSThe links are missing. Nearly all the fossils are just our present animals, and the links between them are just not there. Few scientists today are still looking for fossil links between the major vertebrate or invertebrate groups. They have given up! The links just do not exist and have never existed.

Evolutionists know exactly what those transitional forms should look like, but they cannot find them in the fossil record! They are not to be found, even though thousands of men have searched for them since the beginning of the 19th century! Everywhere they turn, the paleontologists (the fossil hunters) find the same regular, distinct species that exist today, plus some that are extinct.. The extinct ones are obviously not transitional forms between the regular species. For example, the large dinosaurs are not transitional forms, but are just definite species which became extinct in ancient timesprobably by the waters of the Flood.

(Contrary to the lurid paintings of dinosaurs which evolutionists like to display as proof of their theoryextinction of a distinct species is not evolution, and provides no evidence of it.)

The search to find the missing links and fill the gaps between the distinct kinds has resulted in enormous collections of fossils. Recall to mind the earlier statements by Sunderland and *Kier that 100 million fossils have been examined by paleontologists around the world. Later in this chapter a statement by Gish will be quoted, in which he mentions that about a quarter of a million of them have been selected for placement in special collections.

There is such a mass of fossil evidence, that it is embarrassing to the evolutionary world. Scientists are at last admitting that the gaps never will be filled; the links never will be found:

“There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is outpacing integration . . The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.” *T. Neville George, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” in Science Progress, January 1960, pp. 1, 3.

If there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, there has been no evolution!

For additional information see quotation supplement, “11 -Searching for Transitions, ” in the appendix.

7 – ABRUPT APPEARANCE

ABRUPT APPEARANCE OF THE HIGHER TAXANot only do the smaller, slower-moving creatures in the Cambrian suddenly appear in the fossil record,the larger creatures appear just as suddenly! And when these life forms do appearthey appear by the millions! Tigers, salmon, lions, pine trees, gophers, hawks, squirrels, horses, and on and on!

For additional information see quotation supplement, “10 – Connecting the Amphibians to the Fishes, ” in the appendix.

Evolution cannot explain this sudden emergence, and competent scientists acknowledge the fact:

“The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. Not only do characteristic and distinctive remains of phyla appear suddenly, without known ancestors, but several classes of a phylum, orders of a class, and so on, commonly appear at approximately the same time, without known intermediates.” *James W. Valentine and *Cathryn A. Campbell, “Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record,” in American Scientist Vol. 63, November-December, 1975, p. 673.

“In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories about the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” *G. G. Simpson, The Major features of Evolution, (1953), p. 360.

“The sudden emergence of major adaptive types as seen in the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of families and orders, continued to give trouble. The phenomenon lay in the genetic no-man's land beyond the limits of experimentation. A few paleontologists even today cling to the idea that these gaps will be closed by further collecting. . but most regard the observed discontinuities as real and have sought an explanation.” *D. Dwight Davis, “Comparative Anatomy and the Evolution of Vertebrates,” in Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, (1949), p. 74.

For additional information see the quotation supplement, “9 – Abrupt Appearance” in the appendix.

8 – STASIS

UNCHANGING SPECIESAn important principle noted by every paleontologist who works with fossils is known as stasis. Stasis means to retain a certain form, to remain unchanged; in other wordsnot to change from one species to another! We have here the fact that the animals in the fossil record did not change. Each creature first appears in the record with a certain shape and structure; it then continues on unchanged for “millions of years;” and is either identical to creatures existing now, or becomes extinct and disappears. But all the while that it lived, there was no change in it; no evolution. There were no evidences of what paleontologists call “gradualism,” that is, gradual changes from one species to another, There was only stalls.

“The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

“Stasis: Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

“Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'” *Steven Jay Gould, “Evolution's Erratic Pace,” in Natural History, M
ay 1977, p. 14.

For additional information see quotation supplement “13 – Stasis,” in the appendix.

9 – NO CHANGE FROM PAST TO PRESENT

FOSSILS SAME AS THOSE NOW ALIVEAll of the fossils can be categorized into one of two groups: (1) Plants and animals which became extinct, and (2) Plants and animals which are the same as those living today. Neither category provides any evidence of evolution, for there are no transitional forms leading up to or away from any of them. All are only distinct species.

Some creatures became extinct at the time of the Flood or shortly afterward. But all creatures which did not become extinct are essentially identicalboth in fossil form and in their living counterparts today! This is a major point. No species evolution has occurred! The fossils provide no evidence of species evolution!

For additional information see quotation supplement, “12 – Fossils Same as Living Forms, ” in the appendix..

PYLOGENY OF THE FLYING INSECTS

CLICK TO ENLARGE

10 – NOT ENOUGH SPECIES

SHOULD BE MORE SPECIESAccording to evolutionary theory, there was a massive number of species changes in ancient times, but we do not find evidence of this in the rocks. In order for one species to change into another, we should find large numbers of transitional species, partway between one species and another. But this is not found. A leading paleontologist explains:

“There are about 250,000 different species of fossil plants and animals known . . In spite of this large quantity of information, it is but a tiny fraction of the diversity that [according to the theory] actually lived in the past. There are well over a million species living today and . . [it is] possible to predict how many species ought to be in our fossil record. That number is at least 100 times the number we have found. ” *David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, ” in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 22.

(1) The fossil evidence does not have enough different species, and (2) it reveals no successively evolving species in ancient times. But, in addition, the fossil experts admit that far too many “new species” names have been applied to fossils which have been found. Consider this:

CONFUSION IN NAMESAt this point we shall mention a technical point that only adds to the confusion as paleontologists try to search for the truth about the fossils. It also gives the impression of far more extinct species in the fossil record than there actually are.

Fossil hunters have the practice of giving different names to the same species if it is found in rocks of different periods!

Dr. Eldredge [American Museum of Natural History, New York City] was asked, `Do paleontologists name the same creatures differently when they are found in different geological periods?' He replied that this happens, but they are mistakes. When asked the same question, Dr. Patterson [British Museum, London] replied, `Oh, yes, that's very widely done.' Next he was asked, 'That doesn't seem quite honest. You wouldn't do that, would you?' He said that he hoped he wouldn't . .

Would not this practice make a lot more species? Dr. Raup [Chicago Museum] said it would; perhaps 70 percent of the species described [in the fossil rocks] are later found to be the same as existing species, so 70 percent of the new species named should not have been [given new names but were], either through ignorance or because of the ground rules used by the taxonomists.” L.D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), pp. 130-131.

Obviously, such a practice deepens the problem for the experts. In this chapter our concern will be with underlying facts and principles, yet the doubling and trebling of names for the same fossil species only makes it harder for the experts to extract themselves from their Darwinian muddle.

“An assistant of Dr. Eldredge, who was studying trilobite fossils at the American Museum, explained to the author how he made the decision on naming a new species: `I look at a fossil for about two weeks and then if I think it looks different enough, I give it a new name.' So it is simply a matter of judgment with no firm ground rules.” Op. cit., p. 131.

Taxonomists are the men who classify and give names to plants and animals. Among them, the “splitters” are the ones who find it easier to make up new names, than to go to the trouble of properly identifying a specimen in hand.

“We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation.” *Derek V. Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132. [Chairman Geology Department, Swansea University]

(See chapter 15, Species Evolution, for more on this.) It is well-known among the experts that there are far more splitters out there than lumpers, simply because applying a new name is easier and brings more fame, than going through all the drudgery of researching into who had earlier named it.

*Edward Cope and *Othniel Marsh were two major museum fossil collectors in Western U.S. They fiercely hated one another, and for decades consistently double-named specimenswhich had already been named earlier.

“Sadly, in the later bitter rivalry between Cope and Marsh, Leidy [an earlier fossil collector] was all but forgotten. paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, director of the American Museum of Natural History, recalled that many of the Eocene and Oligocene animals had been given three names in the scientific literature: the original Leidy name and the Cope and Marsh names.' ” *R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 272-273.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

11 – LARGER ANCIENTLY THAN TODAY

LARGER FOSSILS ANCIENTLYit is an intriguing fact that, if the fossil evidence supported any species modification, it would be devolutionnot evolution! Ancient plants and animals were frequently much larger than any now living. Not only do we find no crossing over the species line among fossils, but we also discover that species are degenerating with the passing of time. A cardinal principle of evolutionary theory is that creatures must evolve into more complexity as well as bigger size. But the fossil record bears out neither contention. There is clear evidence of the complexity to be found in invertebrates, the supposedly “lowest” form of life.

But there is a size differential as well:

“[Edward Drinker] Cope is known to many students only for 'Cope's Law', which asserts, roughly speaking, that everything goes on getting bigger . . Alas, it is not generally true. Llamas and camels were once the size of hares, it is true, but the modern tiger is smaller than the sabre-toothed tiger of the last ice age . . The horsetails of our ditches are tiny compared with the sixty-foot [18 ml horsetails of the Carboniferous. And where are the giant snails of the early Cambrian or the giant oysters of the Tertiary?” *G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p.122.

Extinct creatures were frequently larger than those alive today. Among the fossils we find the following:

Plants: (1) Enormous plants once existed, far exceeding anything alive today. (2) Fifty-foot [152 dm] high ferns, with 5-6 foot [15-18 dm] fronds. (3) Scouring rushes grew to a height of 12 inches [30.48 cm] in diameter. (4) One-hundred-foot [30.4 dm] high scale trees, with trunks 4-6 feet [12-18 dm] in diameter are found only in fossil form. None are alive today.

Small sea life: (5) Giant trilobites up to 18 [45.72 cm] inches long, with none alive today, and the creatures now living and most similar to them are quite small. (6) Fifteen-foot [457 cm] long straight-shelled cephalopods (Endoceras proteiforme), and 9-foot [274 cm] sea-scorpions (Euryprids) once lived. Nothing of such immense sizes is foun
d among them today. Those fossil Euryprids were the largest arthropods that ever lived. (7) Exquisitely shaped fossil crinoids have been found, while none are now living.

Insects: (8) Some insects were 4 to 8 inches [10.1620.32 cm] in length. Dragonflies had a wing spread of 29 inches [73.66 cm], and some centipedes were 12 inches [30.48] in length.

Amphibians: (9) Today's amphibians are small salamanders or frogs. But in the past, there were the giants of Stegocephalia, of which Onychopus gigas alone weighed 500 pounds [226.8 kg].

Larger marine life: (10) How would you like to meet a shark with jaws 6 feet [183 cm] across? That is what sharks were like in ancient times. (11) Basilosaurus was a marine mammal with a 4-foot [12 dm] head, 10-foot [30 dm] long body, and 40-foot (122 m] tail.

Birds: (12) Diatryma looked somewhat like an ostrich, but was 7 feet [21 dm] tall and had a head as big as a horse. (13) The Phororhacos was nearly 8 feet [24 dm] tall with a skull 23 inches [58.42 cm] across. (14) Dinornis was 10-feet [30.5 dm] tall, and was the largest bird that ever lived.

Larger mammals: (15) The Mongolian Andresarchus had a skull 21/x feet [76 dm] long, and was one of the largest carnivores ever to live. (16) Imagine meeting a long-homed rhinoceros 14 feet [43 m] tall? Another rhinoceros, Baluchiterium, was 13 feet [40 dm] high and 25 feet [76 dm] long.

(17) There were huge wooly mammoths, gigantic hairy mastodons, and 14-foot [43 dm] tall imperial mammoths. (18) Giant armadillos once lived, and ground sloths as big as elephants. (19) Pigs (Enlelodonts) were 6 feet [18 dm] high. (20) One bison (Bison latifrons) had a 6-foot [18 dm] horn spread.

Reptiles: (20) Crocodile-like phytosaurs were 25 feet [76 dm] long, and dolphin-like ichthyosaurs were 30 feet [91 dm] in length. (21) There were 35-foot [171 dm] long marine reptiles (Mosasaurs), and 11-foot [34 dm] marine turtles (Archelon). (22) The Pteranodon had a 25-foot [76 dm] wing spread. (23) And then there were gigantic land reptiles, including the 45-foot [137 dm] Tyrannosaurus rex, the 65-foot [189 dm] long Brontosaurus, the 10-ton j9 mijStegosaurus, and the 80-foot [244 dm] long Diplodocus.

Only within the past couple decades have the fossils of the largest land creature and the largest flying creature been found. In the summer of 1972, James A. Jensen, a Utah scientist, discovered the world's largest dinosaur in western Colorado's Uncompahgre National Forest, near the town of Delta.

“Although it has a superficial resemblance to the huge herbivorous Brachiosaurus, Jensen feels that it is different enough to be an entirely new species. Estimates are that the dinosaur was 50 feet [152 dm] tall, 100 feet [305 dm] in length, and weighed 80 [72.5 mt] tons. That would make it approximately three times as large as the largest dinosaur now known, and place it in the range of size of the blue whalecalled the largest creature on earth. A land creature the size of the blue whale staggers the imagination.” Marvin L Lubenow, “Significant Discoveries Since 1958,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1980, p. 158. [Also see Time, August 21, 1972.]

In 1971, three specimens of the largest bird were found in Texas.

“The largest known flying creature ever to inhabit the earth describes a series of fossil discoveries made by Douglas Lawson beginning in 1971. In a remote section of Big Bend National Park in southwest Texas, Lawson has unearthed the fossil remains of three pterosaursone of them having an estimated wingspan of 51 feet [155 dm], twice as large as any flying reptile previously discovered. By way of contrast, the bird with the largest wingspan, the wandering albatross, measures 11 feet [33.5 dm], and the McDonell Douglas F-1 5A jet fighter has a wingspan of 43 feet [131 dm].” Ibid.

12 – REVIEWING THE BASIC FOSSIL EVIDENCE

THE MISSING TREEThe fossil record does not present a “family tree,” for there is no trunk and no branches; there are only twigs! If you remove the connecting links of a treethe trunk and the branches,what will you have left? Only twigs lying all over the ground. That is the picture we find in plant and animal species living today.

That is the same picture we find in the geologic column. No trunk, no branches; only distinct twigs, each one different than the others.

“So far as we can judge from the geologic record, large changes seem usually to have arisen rather suddenly, in terms of geologic time. . fossil forms intermediate between large subdivisions of classification, such as orders and classes, are seldom seen.” *Paul A. Moody, Introduction to Evolution (1962), p. 503.

IS IT REALLY A “GEOLOGIC COLUMN”?Since early childhood, we have all been exposed to these charts of rock strata and fossils, with the impressive dates alongside. It is called a “Geologic Column” chart.

A correlative scientific analysis, remarkable for its in-depth thoroughness and worldwide coverage, was published in the December 1983 issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly. Authored by John Woodmorappe, the 53-page article contains 807 references, 17 very detailed charts and graphs, and 35 world maps, and 2 regional maps.

In this lengthy article, Woodmorappe validates several interesting points, among which are the following:

(1) Fossils do not tend to overlay one another in successive strata; instead they tend to be mixed together in successive strata. One third of them span three or more strata levels.

(2) Index fossils do not tend to overlay one another in successive strata; instead they are generally found here and there on what approximates a chance arrangement! They are often clumped at a great horizontal distance from the index fossils they are supposed to overlay. More than 9500 global occurrences of major index fossils were marked on 34 world maps in order to analyze overlay occurrences. Great care was taken to be sure that the data on these maps would be as accurate as possible. After preparing maps for each type of index fossil, Woodmorappe overlay them on a light table in order to compare and tabulate instances in which index fossils were above each other in harmony with classical evolutionary rock strata theory.

Table 3 was then prepared to compare the 34 world maps of index fossils. Thus you can make Xeroxes of these maps and make your own overlay analyses on a light table. Or you can make copies onto overhead projector transparencies and show them to students and other audiences.

“Table 3 has been drafted to show the results of superposing Maps 1-34 against each other. There are 479 cross-comparisons; every fossil versus every other that belongs to another geologic period. It can be seen that only small percentages of all localities of any given fossil overlie, or are overlain by, any other single fossil of another geologic period. Thus fossils of different geologic periods invariably tend to shun

each other geographically, and this in itself maybe taken as prima facie evidence that all fossils are ecological and/a biogeographic equivalents of each othernegating all concepts of evolution, geologic periods, and geologic time. To the Diluviologist, this tendency of any two different 'age' fossils to be geographically incompatible. . allows an understanding of fossils in light of the Universal Deluge [the Genesis Flood].” John Woodmorappe, “A Diluviological Treatise on the Stratigraphic Separation of Fossils,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1983, p. 150.

Table 4 was prepared to show possible multiple fossil overlays, rather than just two as with Table 3. The results of this presentation are disastrous for evolutionary theory.

“There does not appear to be any trend for individual fossils to be exceptionally commonly juxtaposed or non-juxtaposed with others.” Op. cit., p. 151.

As we have earlier explained, it is the “index fossils” which are relied on as the proof of the evolutionary theory of fossil strata placement and dating. Here
is Woodmorappe's conclusion in regard to these so-called “index fossils:”

“A total of over 9500 global occurrences of major index fossils have been plotted on 34 world maps for the purpose of determining superpositional tendencies. 479 juxtapositional determinations have shown that only small percentages of index fossils are juxtaposed one with another. Very rarely are more than one-third (and never more than half) of all 34 index fossils simultaneously present in any 200 mile (320 kilometer) diameter region on earth.” Op. cit., p. 133.

(3) Beginning on page 151 of his article he considers possible causes and Flood mechanisms, as possible solutions to why these fossils are to be found in such a confused pattern.

(4) Woodmorappe concludes with an extensive discussion, on pages 167-171, of why so few mammal, bird, and human fossils have been found.

You may wish to obtain a copy of his article to read through and make transparency charts to share with others. The Creation Research Society Quarterly is one of the best publications in its field.

ASKING THE EXPERTSLet us briefly pause in our examination of the strata/fossil evidence and what it revealsand journey to three of the largest paleontological museum holdings in the world. We will first go to the British Museum of Natural History. *Dr. Colin Patterson is in charge of its large paleontology (fossil) collection.

After publishing his 1978 book, Evolution, *Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil. In reply, Dr. Patterson said this:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it . .

“[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the linethere is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record . . It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.” *Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L. D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, p. 89.

Let us now leave Dr. Colin Patterson in London, and go to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. It is one of the largest and oldest natural history museums in America,and probably in the world, and houses 20 percent of all fossil species known. Having had opportunity to carefully study these materials for years, *Dr. David Raup the leading paleontologist at this Field Museum, is in a position to speak with authority. He begins a key article summarizing what the fossil evidence reveals by saying:

“Most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.” *David Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979.

Dr. Raup then quotes a well-known statement by *Charles Darwin that he (Darwin) was “embarrassed” by the lack of fossil evidence for origins (the Cambrian problem) and transitions (the gap problem) in his dayand then Raup declares that the situation today is even worsefor we now have so much more fossil evidence which tells us the same message it told Darwin! Noting that Darwin wrote that he hoped that future discoveries would unearth fossils which would fill the gaps and provide the missing links, Raup then says:

“We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time! By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.” *David Raup, in loc. cit.

We will now leave Chicago and journey to one of the largest museums in the nation, the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, where *Dr. Niles Eldredge is in charge of its massive fossil collection.

While attending a science writers' convention in Gatlinburg, Tennessee in November 1978, Dr. Eldridge was asked by a reporter for evidence from the fossil record of transitional changes from one species to another. A report of his reply was printed shortly afterward in the Los Angeles Times:

“No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to 'gaps' in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links . . There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed.” *Niles Eldredge, quoted in “Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered,” in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.

Drs. *Patterson, *Raup, and *Eldredge spent a lifetime in fossil analysis before giving the above statements. Together, they have been in charge of at least 50 percent of the major fossil collections of the world. They have the evidence, they know the evidence, they work with it day after day. Figuratively, they sit on top of the largest pile of fossil bones in the world. They know what they are talking about. Their conclusion is “no transitional forms.”

But WITHOUT transitional forms there can be NO evolutionfor THAT itself IS what evolution is all about! Evolution is not copper changing into sulpher, it is not air changing into sunlight, nor is it wolves changing into German shepherds. It would be a true species change. Evolution is one basic type of plant or animal changing into another basic type of plant or animal (apple trees into oak trees or goats into cows). There should be fossil evidence of those changes. The evidence would be “transitional forms” filling the “gaps” between the basic types. But such transitions are nowhere to be found.

DARWIN'S GREAT CONCERNOver a hundred years ago, *Charles Darwin recognized the importance of the problem of fossil gaps. Realizing that those gaps immensely weakened his general theory, he wrote this:

“This perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” *Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 6th edition (1956), pp. 292-293.

Since his time, a major campaign has for decades been underway to close up those “imperfections,” but the hundreds upon thousands of fossils which have been found and examined only reveal with deeper clarity and distinctness merely the species we now have today, plus some extinct ones.

[SEEKING]

Quote (Tim Kraft @ July 04 2009,06:29)

Seeking: Now it makes sense, you are quoting from Isaiah of the old covenant. I am refering to the New Testament sealed by the blood of Jesus who gave his life to save us from sin.

TK,

Here are the passages again –

1Jn 1:8  If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness

1Jn 1:10  If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Gal.5:19-21; 1Cor.6:9-11; Rev.21:8;Rom.13:13; Mk.7:21-23; Col.3:5-9

These are all new covenant New Testament passages.
Only the Isaiah passage is O.T. and states a truth that will apply until Jesus returns, Isa 59:2  but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.

Forgiven and covered by the blood of Jesus we are encouraged to confess and receive forgiveness when we err,
1Jn 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness

Believers are also told to put to death the deeds of the flesh

Rom 8:13  For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

These are new covenant passages describing a walk with Christ.

Blessings,

Seeking

[SEEKING]

Stu,July wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

You are just as ignorance as Tim Kraft and t8 about science, philosophy and epistemology.

Do you mean I am just as “IGNORANT”? Thank you though, you ring true to a practitioner of scientism.

[SEEKING]

TIM wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

Are you people even reading what you quote? Verse 9 completely obliterates v8 & v10!! If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1Jn 1:8  If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Interesting that you believe v.9 obliterates v.8. Rather, v.9 is the Lord's remedy for v.8 when we find we have sinned. To say you have not sinned is to be deceived. Pretty plain language. Why the need to confess something we do not have?

So, to answer your question, yes I read the verses. They are very plain and easy to understand. Verse ten is very plain also –

1Jn 1:10  If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

It might be good for you to read up on things to avoid if you are uncertain regarding sin(s) because the word states –

Isa 59:2  but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.

hamartia
ham-ar-tee'-ah
From G264; sin (properly abstract): – offence, sin (-ful).

Sin is anything that God would find offensive as I understand it. You may want to begin by determining what offends God. Many sins (things that offend Him) one solution (the sacrifice of Jesus).

Perhaps another will dilineate for you. But, while there are some “lists” I do not believe scripture means them to be compete, final, or all inclusive. Try Gal.5:19-21; 1Cor.6:9-11; Rev.21:8;Rom.13:13; Mk.7:21-23; Col.3:5-9 as a starting point.

Blessings,

Seeking

[SEEKING]

Quote

I am not one of them.

Sorry, but we disagree. You fit precisely the model as I have said before. It is obvious to any casual observer.

You accuse others of the tactics YOU so diligently practice.
Again, forgive me if I do not play. Others see through you as I do.

Tim Kraft  
Group: Members
Posts: 177
Joined: April 2009 Posted: June 25 2009,03:28

So, Stu: If there is no such thing as “facts proven by science” then all the scientific data that you believe is by faith! Right? TK

Guest
Unregistered
Posted: June 25 2009,13:33

Stu,
Interesting tactic, avoid answering questions that you know will lead to disproving the theories you believe in. Are you afraid that if your theories are disproven that you might have to turn to God? Or could it be that your theories have been disproven and you have nothing left to believe in?

t8  
Group: Regular Members
Posts: 6406
Joined: Oct. 2001 Posted: May 19 2009,18:38

Again Stu, your belief in action and of course your belief overrides any evidence to the contrary.

What a faith you have in your own bias and understanding.

SEEKING  
Group: Regular Members
Posts: 638
Joined: Jan. 2009 Posted: July 03 2009,04:51  

Stu,

Your game is quite interesting. Discredit, ignore, and refuse to consider all opposing evidence. Then present yours as the only valid, sane, concrete understanding. From that foundation you ask others to “prove” something. Cute! Forgive me for not playing. Must be my ignorance.

Seeking

[SEEKING]

'Scientism' infects Darwinian debates

An unflinching belief that science can explain everything about evolution becomes its own ideology

By Douglas Todd, Vancouver
Sun April 4, 2009

There are two major obstacles to a rich public discussion on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and what it means to all of us.

The most obvious obstacle is religious literalism, which leads to Creationism. It's the belief the Bible or other ancient sacred texts offer the first and last word on how humans came into existence.

The second major barrier to a rewarding public conversation about the impact of evolution on the way we understand the world is not named nearly as much.

It is “scientism.”

Scientism is the belief that the sciences have no boundaries and will, in the end, be able to explain everything in the universe. Scientism can, like religious literalism, become its own ideology.

The Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics defines scientism as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of natural science to be applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities).”

Those who unknowingly fall into the trap of scientism act as if hard science is the only way of knowing reality. If something can't be “proved” through the scientific method, through observable and measurable evidence, they say it's irrelevant.

Scientism is terribly limiting of human understanding. It leaves little or no place for the insights of the arts, philosophy, psychology, literature, mythology, dreams, music, the emotions or spirituality.

In general, scientism leaves little or no place for the imagination, which Albert Einstein, after all, said is “everything.”

Many people have been falling into the trap of scientism this year as commentators, including myself, have examined the legacy of Darwin, whose book, On the Origin of Species, was published 150 years ago.

While I am not at all persuaded by Creationists who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, I also have trouble with those who claim science can only support the atheistic proposal that evolution is a result of pure chance.

Such people maintain orthodox science cannot contemplate the possibility that the evolutionary process may include elements of purpose. This is an example of scientism.

One of the scientists who appears to illustrate this view is Patrick Walden, who works at the TRIUMF Cyclotron Laboratory on the University of B.C. campus.

Walden had a punchy opinion piece published in Monday's Vancouver Sun in which he began by applauding my proposal that public schools and universities expose more students to Darwin's evolutionary theory.

While I greatly appreciate Walden's willingness to step out of the confines of academia and take on the role of public intellectual, I disagree with the second part of his commentary.

Walden was bothered by my recommendation that the education system and the media help the public learn there is more than one operative theory of evolution — that there are at least 12.
Walden assumed I was challenging the general validity of Darwin's theory of evolution. I wasn't.
I think the proposal that humans evolved over billions of years from simpler life forms is a no-brainer.

However, I don't believe either Darwin or neo-Darwinists have yet devised a complete picture of how evolution happens, or what drives it.

I detected more than a hint of scientism when Walden declared that neo-Darwinism (which he called “the modern evolutionary synthesis”) is the only theory accepted by respectable scientists.

Walden said four of the other scientific theories of evolution outlined by Phipps in his article in EnlightenNext journal, including biologist's Lynn Margulis theory of cooperation, are mere “additions” to neo-Darwinism.

Beyond that, Walden said the other seven proposed theories of evolution, some of which included philosophical and spiritual perspectives, are nothing more than “pseudo-scientific speculation.” As such, he said, “they are nonsense.”

In other words, Walden, whose viewpoint represents that of many scientists, appears to believe that any discussion of evolution that does not uphold chance as the only driving force is ridiculous.

This is blinkered.

It defaults to atheism. And it assumes incorrectly that what we believe, and the way we live, is always based on provable “facts,” which do not include conjecture, speculation or imagination.
Science has always had a speculative component, as we see with theories about quantum physics and the Big Bang and evolution.

Arguing that any theory about what drives evolution that is not essentially neo-Darwinistic is “nonsense” reflects blindness to the insights that have been offered by philosophy, cosmology and metaphysics, let alone the arts.

In addition to suggesting Walden's approach reflects scientism, I would also say it is a manifestation of “disciplinolatry,” which is the conviction that one academic discipline contains everything that needs to be known about a subject.

Walden attempts to mock the idea that philosophy and even spirituality could be considered when trying to understand what fuels evolution. He acts as if I am arguing for Madame Blavatsky's 19th-century esoteric theories (and her anti-Semitic views) to replace Darwin in public school science classes.

By creating this red herring, Walden ignores the great 20th-century thinkers who have embraced evolutionary theory while offering innovative non-atheistic understandings about how it happens.

They include Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Marshal McLuhan, John Cobb, Ken Wilber, Charles Birch and countless other scientists and philosophers who are not as easy to write off as the eccentric Blavatsky.

The truth is that many scientists are slowly becoming more open to at least discussing the possibility that elements of purpose, not just chance, are inherent in the evolutionary process.
They include the noted biologist Lynn Margulis, the first wife of the late astronomer Carl Sagan, and their science writer son, Dorion Sagan.

Walden appears to think highly of Margulis as an evolutionary theorist. But he fails to appreciate Margulis is willing to expand her mind beyond scientism.

Margulis and Sagan took part this year in an interdisciplinary conference on evolution with philosophers, scientists and theologians at the Vatican.

They have also contributed to books with spiritually inclined scientists and philosophers, including Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolution (Eerdmans), edited by John Cobb.

Back to Darwin says the lively exchange Margulis and Sagan join in on in the book “presents a holistic case for evolution that both theists and nontheists can accept.”

I would like to think Margulis and Sagan would also be willing to have some of the 12 theories of evolution discussed in public schools — if not in biology classes, at least in courses on the history of science or the philosophy of science, as well as in classes on philosophy, world religions and metaphysics.

The general theory of evolution has been widely accepted by both atheists and thinkers with spiritual sensitivities.

Everyone would agree, however, that evolution is also a theory that is incomplete.

When more evolutionary scientists open up to the insights of philosophers and those from other disciplines, I believe their beloved theory will itself evolve. It will become more complex and more elegant.

[email protected]

[SEEKING]

Stu,July wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

Seeking Here are some questions I have posed to you that you have not been able or willing to answer:

Rather, you have ignored any answers given stating they are by “fundies” “Fiction” etc.

Quote

Are you foolish for denying the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Not at all. You have admitted FSM is fictional and the inventors of this myth have plainly stated it was their offer to oppose another theory.

Quote

How is your god not exactly as fictional as the FSM (bhna)?

No one who has attested to God, Jesus, the resurrection has come forth and said I lied or created something in my mind. No one has ever stated they “invented” God to oppose something else. Not true of your FSM. There is no comparison.

Quote

How is [Paul’s] testimony not completely corrupted by his blindness to all but what he preached?

Here again you make an authoritative statement about something YOU know nothing about. YOU believe he is closed minded and his testimony is corrupted. In fact, the record indicates he was willing to have his preaching scrutinizied by others – Gal 2:2  I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.

Quote

What evidence supports [the “creation theory”], what falsifies it and what predictions does it make?

Again, the internet is replete with this information. That you reject it as valid is clear, but the answers you seek are there.

Quote

Did you read the links I posted or do you exclusively consume Discovery Institute propaganda?

Yes. No.

Quote

Who is to say all your historians and witnesses know any better than me?

My response to this was “and vice versa.”

Quote

Can you give me a single example of a falsifiable creationist claim that has not been falsified?

My response to this was that it was double talk. You later admitted that the statement “In the beginning God” was not falsifiable.

Quote

Why do you disagree with Dembski and Behe so vehemently about evolution?

I posted a counter theory and you deem that “vehement disagreement.

Quote

Do you understand the difference between proof and disproof?

In who's opinion? You have labeled me as quite uninformed if not nigh unto ignorant.

Quote

Do you think it is honest to try and have it both ways [you like science confirming scripture but hate when it negates it]?

As with all the others, I have answered this one too. Science poses an alternate conviction which does NOT negate
any more than when Creation Theory poses an alternative to Evolution. It is only validated or negated in the mind of the one considering the evidence.

Quote

Have you read the thread called “The too hard basket” yet?

No.

Quote

When did the flood happen, and what evidence is there for it being global?

About 2348BC. Evidence: the Bible and people you deem as
ignorant fundies such as Henry Morris.

Stu,

Your game is quite interesting. Discredit, ignore, and refuse to consider all opposing evidence. Then present yours as the only valid, sane, concrete understanding. From that foundation you ask others to “prove” something. Cute! Forgive me for not playing. Must be my ignorance.

Seeking

[SEEKING]

Stu,July wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

Not sure I have much more patience for you Seeking.  You seem to have no commitment to your username at all.

Quote

You cannot answer my points yet you persist in misrepresenting things and speculating on stuff YOU know nothing about.  I have to say it is getting a bit tedious.

Quote

You need to lift your game here Seeking, you are being walked all over and you are not quite realising it.

Thank you for your vast array of admiration.

Quote

You probably know your scripture, better than me.  How about you learn your philosophy of science and evidence for cosmology and biological origins and get back to us when you know something about them.

How about I do that when you learn scripture. Get back to us when YOU know something about them.

Quote

You have educated me about the handwashing thing, I am permanently changed in my thinking about that.

I am glad you learned something from our time together. Keep reading on Heaven Net you have more education open to you here.

Seeking

[SEEKING]

TIM wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

If you are at peace with God then why do you refer to dealing with sin? If you are at peace with God you are cleansed of sin, if you believe you sin or are in sin then you are not cleansed or one in Christ! Bless you, TK

1Jn 1:8  If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10  If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

TK, are you deceived and the truth not in you, do you make God out to be a liar and is the word not in you?

Blessings,

Seeking

[Author]

Posts