The World was Symbolically Created in Six Days
The Bible as we know it was compiled many years after the paintbrush of God artfully created the world that today we call home. The Story of Creation presented in Genesis, provides us with an understanding of why God created the world and life around us rather than how precisely the world was created. The Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts “ Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work’, concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337).
In fact the Book of Genesis appears to consistently utilize symbolic and figurative language, for the Catechism also states “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language” (CCC 390), once again drawing reference to the fact that although Genesis is the inspired Word of God, it is in part written in figurative language so as to stress the why behind God’s love for humanity.
It might be easier to understand it in this way – the method by which we measure time today is very different than civilizations throughout history have approached the same subject. Therefore, considering the seven days presented in Genesis, we are provided with a “relational” understanding of God’s creation. We might consider the fact that we truly do not have a clear understanding of the Hebrew meaning behind yom (day), in that it is not entirely clear as to whether such a reference pertains to days as we know them today (24 hours) or to an alternate period of time and space.
It is for this reason that it is all too clear that God inspired the Book of Genesis not to provide a “literal” account of the creation of the world, but rather to provide a symbolic story that is far more important than the scope of the seven days it summarizes. Instead the story of creation provides humanity with a window into the Lord’s awesome love that continues to provide hope in a world of uncertainty. It is amidst this uncertainty, that we can turn to the Book of Genesis to understand why humanity came to be, and why the Lord’s love is truly unending.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
This idea that incomprehendable aspects of the Bible must be reduced to figurative language is quite misleading. Figurative language is not used to mislead readers so as to confuse them on what really happened. It is used to provide a better understanding. Science tells us that no new matter is coming into existence, and no matter in existence is becoming non-existent. The amount of matter in the universe is constant. At some point God began to create matter, and at some point he stopped. Six days should not be the sticking point. It is the fact that God, out of nothing, spoke all that is in existence. He spoke it. Why would He then use figurative language to explain how LONG He chose to speak it into existence. The hard concept here is that He spoke it into existence. It didn't exist before. None of it. He speaks, it exists. Why not use figurative language to explain that part of it? Then, when talking about how a woman was brought into the picture, He verified that this was not figurative language. Adam was put into a deep sleep , God took one of his ribs and created woman. Was this figurative as well?...or were all the references to woman being created out of man in the New Testament completely false and misleading as well? You sir, need to be consistent. If six days was figurative, then so was speaking anything into creation out of nothing, and so was the creation of woman, and so were all the references to that creation in the New Testament...and by then, you have just reduced the entire Bible to one big piece of meaningless figurative language. This is a slippery slope you are sliding down. The logical conclusion is to interpret figurative language as such only when the context makes it obvious.
You skewed whatever argument you were wishing to present by quoting from the Cathoic Catechism. Any sincere New Testament bible studdent knows that there is only one one reliable and true book, the bible, and any other man written book, such as the Catechism, is not God-inspired, thus false.
Going a bit further, Catholicism itself is pretty much proven to be a false religion, and that statement is made based upon sound New Testament exegesis of Revelation 13 and Paul's second letter to the church at Thessalonica, in particular the second chapter where he talks about the "man of sin". Sound, competent biblical scholars have identified both the "man of sin" and the two beasts in Revelation 13 as the Roman Catholic church and the papal dynasty.
Go back and study the history of the papal dynasty. Then read what God has to say about a "falling away", forbidding to marry, abstention from eating certain meat, etc,. This refers to none other than the catholic church. The pope (notice I did not capitalize the P) regards himself as God on earth, and equal to God, and says he has power to forgive sins. No one but God can forgive sins. We're also told to call no one on earth "Father", but do the catholics abide by that? No.
With regard to the age of the earth, let the bible be its own best interpreter. You either believe what it say in its entirety, or you don't.
I didn't realize how crazy some people were. I don't even know where to start on this one. We'll start with your fallacious claim that there is only one reliable and true book. You do realize that every book of the Bible, Old and New Testament, were written by people, right, not spoken word for word by the Angel Gabriel to Mohammad? You also realize that it was the early Catholic Church that decided which books would be included in the Bible and which would not, right? And even if the Bible were the only god-inspired book out there, that still doesn't make any human ponderings on it automatically false. Otherwise this whole conversation would be false. Just because a couple of preachers out there who can't validate themselves without attacking an older, more established, and larger organizations who you claim are "soud" and "competent" have two or three passages that could be interpreted as being negative about the Church if you squint your eyes and cock your head to the side a little bit doesn't "prove" anything, much less that Catholocism is a false religion. The Bible itself says that the devil can quote scriptures for his own purposes. Furthermore, the Pope doesn't and never has claimed to be a god on Earth, but rather to be a representative of Yahweh on Earth. Furthermore, the Pope doesn't claim to be able to forgive sins, but rather cites Matthew 16:19, which reads "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven," to justify interceding as the successors of Peter and the Apostles on behalf of the one Confessing that Yahweh will forgive the sins. And where does it say to call no one on Earth "Father?" Finally, who are you to tell people how they can interpret the Bible? It didn't come with instructions! If I think it has no religious value at all, but has a few nifty stories that I think are entertaining and have a good message, then that's my business, not yours! If someone thinks that it shouldn't always be taken literally, and that it often uses metaphor, that's their business! I'm sure your hand has cause you to sin before, but I bet you still have both of your hands. There is no doubt in my mind that you have beheld another human and lusted, but I bet you did not pluck out your eye. Surely the passage that prescribes such treatment of your body is metaphorical and hyperbolic, so why can't others be the same?
PS. Please don't go and cut off your hands and pluck out your eyes. It would make it very difficult for you to type, and you amuse me way to much for that.
"Any sincere New Testament bible studdent knows that there is only one one reliable and true book, the bible..."
Any honest student of theology also knows how the Bible came to be, and it's anything but handed down from god himself. In reality, humans who claimed no divine inspiration cherry picked which texts ought to be included in the compilation! What criteria did they use to filter the heresy from the canon? We don't know.
I could answer that for you but am choosing to remain the "Devils Advocate" on this because it is much more fun.
I really feel sorry for you.
The history of the Bible, including it's compilation by the early church, is quite well known. Books were chosen to be added and others were chosen to be left out (Enoch, Mary, and Thomas all spring to mind). You can then look at it's history of translation, from Aramaic and Hebrew to Greek... then to Latin... then to the various European languages.
To say it is divinely inspired is a reasonable stance to take (it is how I view the Bible), but to say that it is a word for word transcription seems quite unreasonable given it's history.
"I really feel sorry for you."
I feel sorry for our world. Everyone should be willing to question what they believe.
I believe that the first chapters of Genesis, including the ancient history of the Hebrew people, should be understood within the context of covenant. My friends, Tim Martin and Dr. Jeff Vaughn, have written a book, which can be purchased at their website: http://www.beyondcreationscience.com /
The basic premise is that the same symbolism which guides our understanding of Revelation should also guide it in Genesis. The 6-day creationists insist on a so-called "literal reading of Genesis" to come up with their fanciful notions of "the end times." This literalism includes a woman who sits on 7 hills at one time, and various dragons etc. The literalists understand these symbols in MODERN terms: locusts are helicopters, etc.
When understood in covenant, we see that the Hebrew people were called out of darkness into His marvelous light. We know from Genesis that the Sun and Moon and stars represented Jacob, Rachel, and the 12 sons. We know that throughout scripture, trees and beasts are used to describe humans, both clean and unclean, fruitful and unfruitful. Darkness and light were separated, as were the land and seas in that first chapter of Genesis. Even in the New Testament, we have revealed to us that the children of light were "called out of darkness," i.e., the old covenant, into the covenant of light.
It is a remarkable study of covenant, and I highly recommend that anyone interested in the subject buy it and read it. Even if you don't agree with it, you'll be challenged to expand your thinking. Even the idea that Noah's flood covered the whole planet is challenged - and all of it from a biblical hermeneutic, long ago confirmed by Milton Terry, the great Methodist expositor.
Beyond Creation Science: From Genesis to Revelation
by Tim Martin and Dr. Jeff Vaughn
available: http://www.beyondcreationscience.com /
I do believe the world was created in 6 days. I believe EVERY Christian must believe this because without Genesis being a "fact," the bible would be useless. Let me explain why.
If God hadn't created Adam and Eve and given them dominion over everything on the earth, under his authority, the bible would not make any sense. Adam and Eve were created within those days, and were also given the chance to either choose to obey God or to choose to disobey and learn of the knowledge of good and evil. This is where SIN became part of this world: through Adam eating from the tree.
If Genesis is just a "myth" and the rest of scripture is to be taken as "fact," the bible just does not make any sense. We would have no idea what sin is, where it came from, why we need our relationship with God restored, why we are above animals, and how this world came to be.
The bible is in fact useless.
Glad I could help you out with that.
Oh, and I could help you out with that "sin" misunderstanding too. There isn't any. Nor is there a choice of "obeying your God" or "acquiring knowledge". First, except for xians, acquiring knowledge is just what people do.
As far as "obeying God" goes, even if anyone but you was inclined, don't you think the old boy sets his standards ridiculously high? Just how does one avoid (without castration that is, cause you know he won't let you into heaven then) committing adultery on sight of a pretty girl, when it's supposedly the thought that counts?
From my reading of the bible, we're all doomed, if you give that nasty book any credence at all.
Thank goodness more and more people are putting that thing in the dustbin of history where it belongs.
We are all doomed. If looking at a pretty girl and lusting is committing adultery , who is perfect? And isn't that the WHOLE POINT? God is not some ogre setting high standards to trap us. He is providing all the evidence in the world that we are not and can not be perfect, that we are sinners and we need Him to save us. He wants to make us perfect. The law was given not to show who was good and who was not, it was given to show that ALL have fallen short and ALL need a savior. He then gave us that savior so that those who humble themselves and acknowledge that they are in need of a savior, can be saved. The utopia that all of these new agers and environmentalists who worship the earth is actually a God given desire for heaven...only heaven is far greater than anything they have vainly imagined as their idea of utopia. And why not grasp onto heaven and forsake the counterfeits? Because heaven requires submission to authority outside of self...and self desires to be king.
you've got it right. Just looking at a girl lustfully is sinful... You're also right that it's impossible to avoid... Which is an example of why we are all sinners.
A quick quiz -
What does random pre-marital sex lead to?
What about murder ? Good thing or not so much?
How about abuse of your own body.. smoking , drinking and such - what results do you get?
How about sodomy? Good thing? (nevermind.. don't answer)
the simple point is... every view put into place in the Bible if followed would lead to nothing but a better life..
oh.. and of course this is where the typical atheist jumps in with the stories about slavery and incest.. etc. Don't bother...first off it's just a symptom of not actually READING the Bible and/or quoting it out of context or with a lack of understanding. Anyone can quote mine a line to discredit the book.. but also we all know the message that is presented from the Bible - love your enemies, Judge not lest ye be judged, thou shalt not kill etc. etc.
Anyone claiming different is either lying or simply not educated in it's teachings.
It's a good book... matter of fact it's divine.
"What does random pre-marital sex lead to?"
A number of possible outcomes based on a number of factors. If we are talking about a population where the number of people with STD's is small then the chance of getting and STD is rather small. If we are talking about a man having sex with a number or women then the chances of one of those women getting pregnant by him are rather small.
"What about murder ?"
Murder is considered wrong in non-Christian societies as well. It has been argued that a society that allowed individuals to randomly kill each other would be unstable, and would collapse... which is why none are seen today.
"How about abuse of your own body.. smoking , drinking and such - what results do you get?"
In excess that harms your body... but everything in excess harms the body.
"How about sodomy? Good thing? (nevermind.. don't answer)"
Why not? It's not my 'cup of tea' but Homosexual men seem to enjoy it.
"the simple point is... every view put into place in the Bible if followed would lead to nothing but a better life.."
Even the don't work on the Sabbath? Owning and selling of slaves? Stoning and maiming of criminals?
"oh.. and of course this is where the typical atheist jumps in with the stories about slavery and incest.. etc. Don't bother...first off it's just a symptom of not actually READING the Bible and/or quoting it out of context or with a lack of understanding."
Then what is the context behind the passages detailing how male slaves are to be freed after seven years, but female slaves are never to be freed?
At the risk of sounding like my mother, I don't know what happened to you that caused you to hate Christianity so, but it is evident that you absolutely hate it. This goes beyond lashing back when provoked, which as a proud non-Christian in a largely Christian nation, I sometimes do, this is targeting out people of faith and ruthlessly attacking them. There is no intelligent discussion, no reason or logic, just pure, unrestricted hate. You are just as hateful, illogical, and utterly disgusting as the shameful examples of the human race who have the gall to say that 9-11 and the deaths of our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen overseas are punishment from god for homosexuals. I realize that I am attacking the messanger a bit here, but it is hard to attack the message when it is nothing but hate.
But I can see she didn't teach you much. You didn't respond to a word of my post, just went straight to the attacking me, not anything that I said.
But I am indeed ruthlessly attacking faith. Not people. So, as a proud non-christian (proud of what, then, I wonder?) feel free to butt out.
Unless you'd like to explain the logic of believing that a person is born into a debt of sin, redeemable only by the nailing up of some other person? A debt earned, by the way, by yet a third party, for eating an apple of all things.
If you can explain that, then I nominate you to explain how believing some B.S. like that, gives anybody the moral high ground for all time.
If you can't explain it, then you are at least halfway toward understanding why I hate Christianity, and any other dogma with such power to harden hearts, and enslave minds.
I didn't respond to a word of your post because you didn't give me a word to respond to that wasn't an attack itself. I have to question why you are so ruthlessly attacking faith, and why you feel the need to be so hostile.
You somewhat ridiculously demand that in order to be a part of this discussion, I must explain all of the pieces of Christian theology that you disagree with, even though, as a non-Christian, I don't agree with many of them myself. Furthermore, I don't believe that it is possible to gain the moral high ground, much less have it for all time, simply by believing something, whether it be Christianity, Global Warming, or even that all men are created equal. I do believe that hate is an excellent way to lose it. You need to take a long look in the mirror before you talk about other people's hardened hearts and enslaved minds. While I know you revile all things Biblical, I would nonetheless advise you to "fist take the log out of your own eye," that you may "see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. Now sir, if you do not have anything to add to this debate, namely "Was the world created in 6 days," I respectfully request that you "butt out." You have a glass house that needs tending.
If scientific inquiry has shown conclusively that Genesis is at best allegorical, then Christians should reconsider beliefs that presume a historical interpretation of Eden.
Doctrines like original sin, substitutionary atonement, and the trinity are not described anywhere in the Bible. They're merely theories that theologians have created to make sense of the narrative. Much like a scientific theory, theology should be questioned if it contradicts new discoveries. It's time to rethink your particular theology if you find it in conflict with the conclusions of scientists, whose theories are much easier to conclusively test and verify.
Despite what you say, the Bible makes sense even to me, an atheist. The Bible as ancient folklore can teach us a great deal about ancient Hebrew society: their fears, their dreams, their iconic heroes, and their perception of the world. A document does not need to be a perfectly preserved dictation from the mouth of god to be useful.
Doctrines such as: original sin, substitutionary atonement, and the trinity are very well described in the Bible. It's actually not too hard to piece together if you read scripture as a "whole" since it is supposed to be about God and his will for this earth.
Evolution is merely a theory at best, and has more holes than swiss cheese ;). It is made to seem like it is "irrefutable," but that is not the case. It is actually "forced" to be taught in schools as fact, although it is only the closest science can come to explaining the origin of human existence and how things developed over time. What's more controversial is the other "separate" theory, which I have no idea why its separate, the "Origin of Life." That theory is so flawed that it has to be kept a separate theory, to make evolution seem "credible."
If you would like to discuss the trinity or etc, feel free to let me know. It's best to look at both sides like I have, not just one "presupposed" attitude towards the other.
So would you say that the those in the bible "lied" about Jesus doing miracles, and God showing himself through signs or etc. Because that doesn't exactly represent how they acted: Jesus followers were promoting honesty, truth, forgiveness, etc... and they died because of what they saw and believed in. It would seem crazy that they would just make things up, and die for thier beliefs... doesn't it. Just doesn't work logically with your theory.
I wouldn't just go as far to say that those in the Bible lied about the miracles Jesus performed. I would go even further and state that they never existed. The Bible has some very valuable messages but if you are referring to anything from the Gospels to support your views, I would reconsider. It is well known that these books have been meddled with by "well meaning" Christian scholars over the centuries.
Strange that there are absolutely no references to Jesus from that period outside of the Bible itself... which has been, at best mistranslated and at worst completely fabricated.
"So would you say that the those in the bible 'lied' about Jesus doing miracles, and God showing himself through signs or etc."
See, right there, you set up a false argument for the opposition, which is easily cut down, and you then proceed to do so. That is a straw man. Do you understand the difference, now?
"it is only the closest science can come to explaining the origin of human existence and how things developed over time"
Yes. Science courses are taught using the best known science. And religious myths are not taught in science courses. So science teaches that the universe is about 14 billion years old. I think you've got it!
"It's best to look at both sides like I have"
Or maybe it's better to improve our short lives with science and ignore silly religions.
"It would seem crazy that they would just make things up, and die for their beliefs... doesn't it?"
Yes, it does seem crazy. But religions breed fanatics and fanatics ...
First of all, I have no "presupposed attitude." I was a young earth creationist like yourself when I was first introduced to these issues. If anything, that was my presupposed attitude, and it took years for me to overcome it. If you think original sin, substitutionary atonement, and the trinity are obvious when reading the scripture "as a whole," then I highly suggest that you read the works of Christians who would disagree with you. I particularly enjoyed Tom Harpur.
I don't know how better to state this: The theory of evolution is the most extensively verified theory of science outside the mathematical precision of physics. No other theory has the same extent of converging, collaborative evidence from such a diversity of scientific disciplines over the past century. Paleontology, anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, medicine, psychology, sociology, geology, astronomy, and even computer science are just a few examples of the fields independently producing volumes of observations that validate the theory of evolution.
As an example, consider human retroviruses. An endogenous retrovirus is a virus that infects gametes and becomes part of the genetic makeup of a species. These fragments of DNA make up about eight percent of the human genetic code, and thousands of them are in the exact same locations in chimpanzees. If chimpanzees and humans were created separately then the probability that the same viruses would infect the same locations in our genetic codes is near impossible. The only two viable explanations are that (1) we share a common ancestral population with chimpanzees or (2) the creator pre-infected both species with the same viruses in the same genetic locations. Is the second explanation compatible with your god or your notion of original sin?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa_fact_specter
That is just one example of thousands from genetics alone that validate the theory of evolution. Evolution is not irrefutable, but it has an incalculably high probability of being correct based on our observations. There is no controversy among professionals: evolution happened. The only disagreement that still exist are over the details.
Ambiogenesis is a separate theory because Darwin's theory never dealt with the first life. His theory presupposed the existence of life to explain the development of biodiversity. God may have created the first life, and the theory of evolution would still be correct. Ambiogenesis is an area of ongoing research complicated by the fact that the earliest life did not fossilize, but it appears increasingly likely that the earliest self-replicating molecules formed naturally. Most of the molecules required by the simplest cells are naturally occurring.
You suggested a conspiracy theory to force the theory of evolution into schools. There are thousands of scientists all over the globe from every creed, ethnicity, and nation relying upon the theory in their daily work. To suggest that all these individuals are complicit in a global conspiracy to force the theory onto school children is ludicrous. If evolution were indeed a lie, the whistle blower who could explain exactly how the theory is flawed would become a household name overnight. She would have more grant money than she could spend. In such a competitive profession, why hasn't this happened?
because you can't imagine a reason why both chimps and humans have a chunk of DNA that has the same viral code doesn't mean it's evolution . It also doesn't mean God infected them both.
I could easily see other reasons.. DNA is a code.. and follows rules in the manner it's formed. If both species had encountered a disease it's not hard to believe the viral code would be in the same location.
So called 'Junk' DNA is still quite a mystery... it was only recently that they began realizing it's not junk. Matter of fact they are considering the possibility that the so called 'Junk DNA' may be the actual information for constructing the organism.. while the regular DNA is no more than the bricks and mortar to build with - It's possible junk DNA is more important.
But since you shared your retrovirus story... I'll share a story with you.. How about the recent study on sea anemone's?
http://www.bio-nica.info/Biblioteca/Pennisi2007Anemone.pdf
''One of the big surprises of the anemone genome, says Swalla, is the discovery of blocks of DNA that have the same complement of genes as in the human genome. Individual genes may have swapped places, but often they have remained linked together despite hundreds of millions of years of evolution. . . Moreover, the anemone genes look vertebratelike. They often are full of noncoding regions called introns, which are much less common in nematodes and fruit flies than in vertebrates. And more than 80% of the anemone introns are in the same places in humans. . .
Finnerty and his graduate student James Sullivan also looked in the anemone genome for 283 human genes involved in a wide range of diseases. They will report in the July issue of Genome that they found 226. Moreover, in a few cases, such as the breast cancer gene BRCA2, the anemone’s version is more similar to the human’s than to the fruit fly’s or to the nematode’s. . .
This implies that even very ancient genomes were quite complex and contained most of the genes necessary to build today’s most sophisticated multicellular creatures. . . ''
Interesting eh? Why would the sea anemone have such complex DNA....? As they put it.. it possibly has the genes capable of building today's most sophistacted multicellular creatures.. So then - did it always have them? If it was a result of mutation.. why does it share so much in common with our own?
The point is... there's more than meets the eye - and simply because you find a virus in chimps that is also in humans - this is not a proof of evolution from chimps... it just means (guess what) the same virus is in both. Science is not science if it makes these kinds of assumptions.
Many people like to say that we have 98% of the genes of the chimp..
do you know we also have 78% of the genes of a BANANA!?
does that lead you to believe we are related to a banana?
question everything - science included.
"this is not a proof of evolution from chimps... it just means (guess what) the same virus is in both. Science is not science if it makes these kinds of assumptions."
Lets start off with this... Humans did not evolve from chimps.. chimps and humans have a common ancestor.
Moving onward... the fact that the same gene sequences can be found in both humans and chimps is evidence that we share a common ancestor, which when combined with other evidence gives strong credence to the theory that humans and chimps are related. Science does not 'assume' that since chimps and humans are genetically similar that we have a common ancestor, it is seen as evidence supporting that theory.
"do you know we also have 78% of the genes of a BANANA!?
does that lead you to believe we are related to a banana?"
Yes, there is a common ancestor between humans and the banana... an exceptionally distant one to be sure.
"question everything - science included."
That's the point of Science... Science is there to be questioned, tested, and re-evaluated. That is why scientific theories are constantly being changed or discarded based on new observations.
Yes, I understand we didn't evolve from chimps from the position of evolution theory - and I'm sorry for saying it that way considering I truly don't want to encourage the misinformation and typical uninformed view.
You never addressed any of the sea anemone info.. my point is - if we have a 'common ancestor' the more we look at the info.. the only common ancestor we could have is an amoeba - and we would have lost common ancestry at that point. Why? Because of the cambrian explosion - which shows that at one moment (5 million years or so) nearly every phylum appeared.
'Geologically speaking, 5 million years represents a mere 0.11 percent of Earth’s
history. As Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen has explained, “compared with the 3-plus-billion-year history of life on earth, the period [of the explosion] can be likened to one minute in 24 hours of one day.''
''Cambrian rocks display about half (or more) of the basic body plans or architectural designs of the
animal kingdom.''
''Representatives of nineteen of the forty known animal phyla definitely make their first appearance in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion. Three phyla appear in the Precambrian. Six animal phyla first appear in the fossil record after the Cambrian period, and twelve more are not
represented in the fossil record.''
and my sidenote: Keep in mind that the six phyla that appear 'after' the cambrian could always be moved earlier in the record if we find earlier examples... This is the failure of fossils. - for example.. if I find a cat skeleton in the earth... It only tells me that they existed in this form at that time... it doesn't tell me that they didn't exist in that form EARLIER in the record.. Though we have found that roughly half of the phyla and many subphyla first appeared in the cambrian - that doesn't rule out that all of the phyla could with further research be proven to appear in this 5 million year period. A mere 6 phyla are currently shown to not...this concept is also stated in the paper as:
'many paleontologists think that almost all of these additional eighteen phyla may well have originated during the Cambrian explosion. As Valentine, Jablonski, and Erwin argue, “All living
phyla may have originated by the end of the [Cambrian] explosion.”
There are no transitional fossils leading up to these phylum -
a slightly exaggerated time line might appear like this:
3 billion + years --) singe cell lifeforms / agae
530 million years ago --) possibly every other family of animal and plant.
But this is only the original family... right? These creatures were possibly just very simple forms - so what's it matter?.... not at all. Let's take the example of Haikouella lancelota
According to Chen and his colleagues, Haikouella has many of the same features of the Yunnanozoon lividum, as well as several additional anatomical features including a “heart, ventral
and dorsal aorta, an anterior branchial arterial, gill filaments, a caudal projection, a neural cord with a relatively large brain, a head with possible lateral eyes, and a ventrally situated buccal cavity with short tentacles.”
Many of these phyla were in the same form as they are now seen.. in other words - they appear in the record.. with no transition up - and make no further adaptations. Many like Haikouella are extinct.
This does not support evolution.. it supports some form of scientifically unexplainable creation - it implies drastic immediate change that brings about every animal and plant family.. with no sign of transition - and then relatively low amounts of change afterward. the only thing left that disagrees with creation is the time line - which I feel is questionable due to the methods of extrapolation since it is built on assumptions.
"You never addressed any of the sea anemone info.. my point is - if we have a 'common ancestor' the more we look at the info.. the only common ancestor we could have is an amoeba - and we would have lost common ancestry at that point. Why? Because of the cambrian explosion - which shows that at one moment (5 million years or so) nearly every phylum appeared."
I'm not sure how the Cambrian explosion would 'mask' earlier ancestors. the new phyla that appeared during that time did not come from nowhere. Indeed there is evidence for early animals during the Ediacaran. Indeed there is evidence of 'animals' during the Ediacarn, with the older fossils being found between 580 mya (million years ago) and 550 mya.
More interesting in that regard is that, statistically speaking, the diversification of animals during that time different times was no faster then other diversifications that occurred later. Only 11 phyla out of the thirty odd metazoan phyla appeared during that time.
It is also important to note that there is no evidence for plants during that time (the dominant for of multi-cellular land life in the modern era).
"This is the failure of fossils. - for example.. if I find a cat skeleton in the earth... It only tells me that they existed in this form at that time... it doesn't tell me that they didn't exist in that form EARLIER in the record.. "
It is not a failure, it is a limitation. fossils are always open to re-interpretation when older ones are found.
"Though we have found that roughly half of the phyla and many subphyla first appeared in the cambrian - that doesn't rule out that all of the phyla could with further research be proven to appear in this 5 million year period. A mere 6 phyla are currently shown to not...this concept is also stated in the paper as"
Actually, as stated above, there is evidence that some of those phyla existed before the explosion. This is because older fossils were discovered and the evidence was reinterpreted.
"There are no transitional fossils leading up to these phylum - "
The fossils that are older are made up of transitional forms. Multi-cellular life existed before the Cambrian era... going back to around 590 mya.
"But this is only the original family... right? These creatures were possibly just very simple forms"
mollusks, worms, and jellyfish all existed before the Cambrian era, and all can be quite complex.
"3 billion + years --) singe cell lifeforms / agae
530 million years ago --) possibly every other family of animal and plant."
actually its more like 3 bya bacterial life, simple multi-cellular life
590 mya more complex forms of life start to form...
"Many of these phyla were in the same form as they are now seen.. in other words - they appear in the record.. with no transition up - and make no further adaptations"
Not at all! Cambrian life was drastically different from life today. There were no mammals, amphibians, spiders, birds , etc...
"it implies drastic immediate change that brings about every animal and plant family.."
Except that land plants did not come about until later on.
"This does not support evolution .. it supports some form of scientifically unexplainable creation"
How exactly does it support an unexplainable creation?
"it implies drastic immediate change that brings about every animal and plant family.."
10+ million years is hardly drastic or immediate.
"with no sign of transition -"
Not true, there are signs of transtional species... for example there are 'worms with legs' that are seen as a split between worms and arthropods.
"and then relatively low amounts of change afterward."
aside from the development of land plants / animals, and virtually every species seen in the fossil record since then... including humans (you don't see it as a small amount of change between sponges and humans?)
"the only thing left that disagrees with creation is the time line - which I feel is questionable due to the methods of extrapolation since it is built on assumptions"
What assumptions?
The development of complex structures is not 'easy'... but once they are developed they provide a significant advantage, letting those species expand rapidly (filling new niches) and replacing their competitors.
''The development of complex structures is not 'easy'...''
I'll say! In laboratories we managed to make one questionable evolution .. the case of E Coli.. after tons of generations and time... and then could not force a single other change... The change they caused in it hardly equates to evolution when compared to even the tiniest of cambrian developments.
Your argument about the change from sponge to man is deceptive in intent... on the other hand consider an animal with a brain / a heart / a nervous system / eyes / gills / a backbone / a head / a chest / tentacles / and more... these are the truly drastic changes. Simply put.. the hard work is finished.. give me an animal with a brain and I can propose how to make it bigger... that's the easy part..(comparatively.. though there's no mechanism still) All of these major contributions were completed in one leap.. an insufficient one that is considered 5 to 10 million years. The rest of the modifications would be dramatically easier.
And I say the dating is based on assumptions.. how so? First off...the wonderful index fossils.
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists believed it had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. Evolutionists reasoned the coelacanth crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal.
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated ANY (key word there) rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70 million years old. It was an INDEX FOSSIL Today, coelacanth fossils look like captured coelacanths despite more than 70 million years of 'evolution'. If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Yet fossils of them are scarce.... which questions the age given to them. 100's of living coelecanth's were found since there was a reward for them.
Examples like these are numerous.. though any disparity in evolution's theory is either made to agree... or not reported to the media . The coelecanth is a rarity for it's publicity.
If a mammal were found in cambrian soil.. then it is assumed the sediment is corrupted.. or the date is changed - any manner they can use to preserve the common index and theory.
Bones of modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull, the Castenedolo skeletons, Reck’s skeleton, the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, the Vertesszöllos fossil and others.. Evolutionists either ignore the remains or develop some stretch to preserve the theory and time line... speaking of stretches..
Remember the big bang? I hope we've all realized it's wrong by now - for a wide assortment of reasons...the hubble deep field shows ridiculously distant fully developed galaxies that show our age of the universe can't be correct... but let's look at what happened - first dark matter “missing mass” had to be “created” to preserve the big bang theory. Then when realizing that the universe is accelerating.. rather than decelerating the way the big bang would predict - they created 'dark energy ' to account for the mysterious inconsistency. How far will they go to protect a theory?.. Wouldn't it be easier to say it appears to be incorrect? Red-shift and many other issues show it's wrong as well.. but anyway.. that's a different topic..
I'm about to exceed how much text this comment will take... believe me - I'm never done.. I'll post another comment to continue..
wow, I hit the post size cap as well...
"Remember the big bang?"
The term that is now seen as not very accurate? Yes.
"I hope we've all realized it's wrong by now - for a wide assortment of reasons...the hubble deep field shows ridiculously distant fully developed galaxies that show our age of the universe can't be correct..."
[Citation Needed]
"but let's look at what happened - first dark matter “missing mass” had to be “created” to preserve the big bang theory."
Dark matter was not created to preserve the big bang theory, but rather to explain the differences between the predicted and observed mass of distant galaxies. It's presence has since been expanded to explain other observed phenomena.
"Then when realizing that the universe is accelerating.. rather than decelerating the way the big bang would predict - they created 'dark energy ' to account for the mysterious inconsistency. "
The big bang theory did not predict a slowing expansion... that was seen as one of two possible results... an expand-collapse universe and a continuous expansion universe. Indeed the expand-collapse universe was seen as the less likely of the two because it relied on the amount of mass in the universe (which had not been calculated) being enough to overcome the observed expansion.
"How far will they go to protect a theory?.. Wouldn't it be easier to say it appears to be incorrect?"
They did say that the theory was incorrect, and have gone on to modify it to match the observed results. Can you cite competing theories?
"Red-shift and many other issues show it's wrong as well.. but anyway.. that's a different topic.."
How so? I'm a much better physicist then I am a biologist (physics is a hobby of mine) so I'd really like to see the math behind that!
this is interesting... though completely confusing..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm
An 18,000 to 12,000 year old 3 foot tall ape man??.. seriously? By the drawing that's the idea. And they guess at it being descended from homo erectus? Homo erectus looks far more human than that depiction... I'm not even sure what direction to go with that... but if anything to me it shows how little we know.. 12,000 year old somewhat vocal tool using ape men??
Anyway.. among evolution 's odd assumptions as I've mentioned before.. is the concept that every change means 'live or die'... a new type of toe and all those without it just can't keep up. Is that rational? Every change doesn't mean success or failure.. It would be more likely that there would be a vast number of different types of humans... the tree would splinter continually and would have no reason to lead to extinction from the changes. Since clearly they maintain we have undergone sheerly MASSIVE changes even from our apish ancestry to our current state... then there would logically be a vast variety of different outcomes alive today. Extinction is not inevitable.. or even likely. Conveniently the above 12,000 year old oddity example is M.I.A. - proposed to be a victim of a volcano that took out every one (though they leave room for the idea that they might exist still). Their complete extinction is very convenient... since if we found one we would likely find them to have an entirely rational explanation and nothing like their depiction - just like the coelecanth, which they had fossils of, did not end up having the features they assumed.
Assumption -- the enemy of science .. and also the mechanism of it. Science starts with a hypothesis.. (that's an assumption) and then builds from there. Do I propose a better way? No.. I just insist on us keeping our discoveries in line with our track record and also with the methods used. We have proposed entire skeletons based on a tooth.. We propose the look of the creature.. its eating habits - from the bones. Speculation isn't science.. it makes science look bad.. and also those who don't follow science closely won't hear when these speculations are found to be miles off.
Anyway.. I digress again -
As far as Hubble's deep field - they found spiral galaxies which appeared as old as any of those nearby... When you combine the amount of time needed to create such a galaxy and the amount of time needed for the light to reach us.... It becomes clear that the galaxies are older than the universe - and obviously that's unacceptable. And no, I don't have a reference for that... I've observed the deep field - and heard these views from scientists concerning the apparent age of the galaxies... the resulting problem is obvious.
to be continued..=)
"An 18,000 to 12,000 year old 3 foot tall ape man??"
Homo Floresiensis, aka the hobbit? There is a good amount of debate on those remains... are they a distinct species or an offshoot of an existing species marked by dwarfism?
How do you explain the remains?
"Every change doesn't mean success or failure.."
I stated that earlier. Evolution is not a binary system where a mutation either advances or kills an individual. A helpful mutation increases the chances of reproduction, a neutral mutation does not increase or decrease, and a harmful mutation decreases the chances of reproduction (with a very harmful mutation bringing the chance of reproduction to zero).
"Since clearly they maintain we have undergone sheerly MASSIVE changes even from our apish ancestry to our current state... then there would logically be a vast variety of different outcomes alive today"
There are a large number of apish species alive today, though Homo Sapiens are the only species of the homo group to survive to the modern world. Remember that there is evidence that there is some strong evidence that we overlapped with the Neanderthals, wiping them out through competition.
"Extinction is not inevitable.. or even likely."
Extinction is highly likely. Most species that have ever existed are now extinct, with those we see around us representing only a tiny number of the total species that have existed on this planet.
"Conveniently the above 12,000 year old oddity example is M.I.A. - proposed to be a victim of a volcano that took out every one (though they leave room for the idea that they might exist still)"
The only place where H.Floresiensis remains have been located are on the island of Flores, where a massive volcanic eruption led to the extinction of several species. It is not known if H.Floresiensis existed elsewhere, so it is possible that there were later survivors.
How do you interpret the remains? What are their origins? How old are they? Why don't they exist in modern times?
"Their complete extinction is very convenient... since if we found one we would likely find them to have an entirely rational explanation and nothing like their depiction"
You make it sound as though there is some massive consperacy hiding the evidence... except that to find a living H.Floresiensis would be a huge event, raising the scientists involved to the highest circles of the scientific community.
"We have proposed entire skeletons based on a tooth.."
True, but those are known to just be assumptions. By looking at a tooth and comparing it to other known teeth we can make some baseline assumptions about size and diet . Those are only preliminary assumptions though, always subject to revision in the face of new evidence.
"We propose the look of the creature.. its eating habits - from the bones."
We can tell a great deal about a creature by looking at it's bones, and by comparing those bones to existing creatures. Teeth tell a great deal about diet, and bone structure shows physical structure (including estimations about muscles based on their anchoring points on the bone).
"those who don't follow science closely won't hear when these speculations are found to be miles off."
How so? When new evidence comes up challenging current theories that is when Science is at it's most exciting. Look at cosmology... the discovery that the universes expansion is accelerating is astounding... causing excitement throughout the scientific community. What was at one time believed to be a reasonably complete model is being heavily investigated in the light of this new evidence.
"It becomes clear that the galaxies are older than the universe - and obviously that's unacceptable. And no, I don't have a reference for that... I've observed the deep field - and heard these views from scientists concerning the apparent age of the galaxies... the resulting problem is obvious."
The 'age paradox'? Hipparcos has shed some light into that by demonstrating that previous estimations about distance to various Cepheid variables were off. This new data has revised the age of the universe to be older then was originally theorized.
The age of the universe is currently an area of extreme interest, because it is not well defined... and there is a great deal of research into determining that age.
As far as red shift... our views on it are still not conclusive.. but one problem is that quasars often have high red shifts..yet cluster with galaxies with low red shifts
“The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.” Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.
there's several other problems... red shifts when measured seem to fall within specific intervals - which makes little sense... it seems they must represent something other than what we assume..
William G. Tifft, “Properties of the Redshift,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 382, 1 December 1991, pp. 396–415.
anyway.. redshift seems faulty for even more reasons..
''Dark matter was not created to preserve the big bang theory, but rather to explain the differences between the predicted and observed mass of distant galaxies''
You mean 'the predicted and observed mass of distant galaxies as proposed by the big bang? Because it seems to me that that was the origin of the issue.. Anyway... whatever the case they've done multiple lengthy tests.. and can't find this dark matter - most rational scientists have given up the search completely.
And as far as you pointing out both an accelerating and decelerating universe were proposed.... yes, of course I'm aware of that - but an accelerating 13.7 billion year old universe has it's own issues off the bat - it has no means of acceleration.. and defies physics. A decelerating model would have been favorable for many reasons.. one of those reasons is it would coincide with the big bang. But acceleration has won pretty much unquestionably..
''We now know that the expansion is accelerating and that whatever caused the acceleration cannot be Standard Model physics.” Gordon Kane, “The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model,” Scientific American, Vol. 288, June 2003, p. 73
But hey.. you knew this - It's also amusing to me that more and more of what we find is not 'standard model physics'... our proposed models are very wrong.. without our models what do we have?
And really a 'competing theory' isn't necessary... any theory has to hold up on it's own. It has the right to be tested and when anomalies crop up that haven't explanation the theory lies in question. The Big bang was questionable from it's conception - no pun intended.
"but one problem is that quasars often have high red shifts..yet cluster with galaxies with low red shifts "
Arp's bit? Haven't current observations demonstrated that he was wrong?
"“The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.” Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579."
No offense, but creationists have a history of quote mining... what's the larger context of that statement?
"William G. Tifft, “Properties of the Redshift,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 382, 1 December 1991, pp. 396–415."
That's based on observations made in mid 1970. And recent observations, particularly those from the Sloan, shown that those observations were not accurate. Quantization of redshift can appear when galactic clusters are viewed across massive voids, but when other objects are found at distances between those to then the quantization smooths out.
"You mean 'the predicted and observed mass of distant galaxies as proposed by the big bang? Because it seems to me that that was the origin of the issue.. Anyway... whatever the case they've done multiple lengthy tests.. and can't find this dark matter - most rational scientists have given up the search completely."
That was rather poorly phrased... a better phrasing would be:
When galaxies are examined and estimates about their mass are made by counting the number (and type) of stars found within an estimated mass is determined. However when that estimation is compared with other estimates (such as gravitational lensing) there are significant differences. The theory of dark matter attempts to explain that difference by adding additional mass. Since that time dark matter has been used to explain other, similar phenomena. For instance the properties of dwarf galaxies circling the Milky Way have been explained using dark matter.
The actual nature of Dark Matter is not yet fully understood, nor has it been observed directly. Yet from observations only 4% of the matter in the universe is visible. How do you explain those observations?
"And as far as you pointing out both an accelerating and decelerating universe were proposed...."
I left out one... the stable universe, where the universe expands to a certain point then stabilizes (expansion forces and gravity balance each other perfectly, the most unlikely of the three due to the level of 'fine tuning' required for it to work).
"A decelerating model would have been favorable for many reasons.. one of those reasons is it would coincide with the big bang"
Yet those same scientists who you say ignore new evidence if it goes against current theories are busy trying to rework the standard model to describe the acceleration. Also, how does a decelerating model coincide with the B.B? All the models proposed (and the current observations) indicate a B.B.
"But hey.. you knew this - It's also amusing to me that more and more of what we find is not 'standard model physics'... our proposed models are very wrong.. without our models what do we have?"
New models that include elements of the previous models? Or should we just throw up our hands and go home?
"It has the right to be tested and when anomalies crop up that haven't explanation the theory lies in question."
It sure does, and it is being tested / re-evaluated in light of the new evidence.
For starters... let me say I give you a lot of credit. This has been a rare form of debate. It hasn't 'devolved' into name calling or accusations of 'arguments from ignorance' etc. that these types of conversations usually lend themselves to. You've maintained more of an even tone than even myself.
You make our scientific work sound preservable by saying that if our models prove incorrect.. we will keep the elements that remain. The problem is that if the foundation of the model is faulty... every other conclusion which is built off it will be faulty as well. In other words the whole thing collapses leaving no elements, no model.. and no alternative. I believe that if your first assumption is only materialistic - you will always be left with anomalies.. a big question mark. Science is the search for truth... not materialistic truth. If DNA leads us to the conclusion that mutation could not account for all the changes in species we witness, then that needs to be accepted.
I'm going to go at this in a different direction.. and state some opinions that many may disagree with.. but I feel are definitely so. First, I would say that a large volume of what we know from science is the result of a search for proof of God's existence. Atheists get very defensive when a viewpoint like this is raised. I believe most of them really don't even realize that they are searching. I was an atheist.. I argued vehemently against anything supernatural for most my life.. If you had asked me why I did it.. I'd cite a Dawkins like position that religion somehow destroys the world... that it is a sign of ignorance. That it reveals a weakness in an individual. I would say that if we were to take a stance that 'God did it' - that all science would cease.
The problem is that here I am on the other side of it...and I now argue for the other side with even more interest in the subject matter than previously. The viewpoint that 'God did it' has not caused me to want to simply cease scientific exploration... instead I'm vastly interested in how he did it.
But the irony is... I still feel that science has greatly benefited from those who will not allow a 'divine foot in the door'. How so? How is it we benefit from both? The argument. An atheist or agnostic scientist has the unenviable task of proving that all we see really could 'just happen'. Without people holding that position I would not have so much evidence that it couldn't 'just happen'... they are invaluable. From my perspective... which obviously you disagree with... science has been forced to accept further and further stretches of the imagination to accept a materialistic explanation.
I applaud their efforts... but still find it extremely frustrating. To propose that hydrogen... given enough time.. becomes people.. is not scientific or logical. If you feel that is not what is being argued here... then what is? The viewpoint is that the most basic element.. becomes the other elements.. and eventually these elements formed intelligent life. Sorry that this has become a sortof dissertation rather than rebuttal to your comments.. it's just my 'nature'. I'll post another comment returning to the 'matter' at hand...
"For starters... let me say I give you a lot of credit. This has been a rare form of debate. It hasn't 'devolved' into name calling or accusations of 'arguments from ignorance' etc. that these types of conversations usually lend themselves to. You've maintained more of an even tone than even myself."
Thank you, a debate that degenerates into name-calling is a useless one. I hold myself to a fairly high standard with regards to logic and rationality... believing that if I cannot provide firm reasoning for my 'beliefs' then they require re-examination.
"In other words the whole thing collapses leaving no elements, no model.. and no alternative."
yet the models are still useful. Cosmological models are not built out of thin air, they are founded in Einsteinian and Newtonian physics... the same basic principals that we observer here on earth we see when we look out into the cosmos.
"I believe that if your first assumption is only materialistic - you will always be left with anomalies.. a big question mark."
Are you familiar with the works of Kurt Godel? You should look into the Incompleteness Theorem.
Personally I don't believe that there is an 'end point' to Science, a one complete theory that perfectly describes everything... we can only observe and refine our models.
"If DNA leads us to the conclusion that mutation could not account for all the changes in species we witness, then that needs to be accepted."
If it does then new mechanisms will have to be proposed to account for the diversity we see. One that can be quantified and used to make predictions. DNA has yet to bring us to that conclusion, and the evidence is steadily piling up in evolution 's favor.
"First, I would say that a large volume of what we know from science is the result of a search for proof of God's existence."
How so? It is the search for a better understanding of the physical world... and the basic principles require that for something to be considered it must be observable / measurable.
"The viewpoint that 'God did it' has not caused me to want to simply cease scientific exploration... instead I'm vastly interested in how he did it."
So what mechanisms do you see in action? How did God create the diversity we see around us? How do you describe the expansion of the universe in terms of Gods actions?
You've come down on the side of a six day creation... how did God do that? How do you use Gods actions to describe black holes and quasars? How do you explain the horizon problem that a 6 day creation a few thousand years ago brings?
"An atheist or agnostic scientist has the unenviable task of proving that all we see really could 'just happen'."
And the alternative is that an entity that we cannot see, cannot measure, wished everything into being? Your very specific about the nature of that entity as well... so how would you prove that your view is correct to a Hindu or a Jainist?
"The viewpoint is that the most basic element.. becomes the other elements.."
Nuclear fusion? Which we can observe directly happening? Which we can repeat in the lab? How do you describe this process scientifically?
"and eventually these elements formed intelligent life. "
How do you describe, scientifically, how intelligent life came about?
''yet the models are still useful. Cosmological models are not built out of thin air, they are founded in Einsteinian and Newtonian physics...''
Currently we have a schism between Newtonian physics and quantum physics.. saying somehow that one type operates on small objects and another on large. Anyone can see that such a dividing line is arbitrary... like a drinking age of 21.. we have drawn a line.. but it's not rational to assume a true line exists..Clearly quantum physics if true (and apparently it is) it operates at all levels.. or at least that would be the logical idea. As the ancient emerald tablet says 'as above, so below'... but of course that was alchemy... and scientific minds rule it out since it is 'outdated' and 'occultism'... but truth is truth.. no matter where it originated. The emerald tablet is an ancient 'model' of sorts... A model like Newtonian physics has applications.. but if it fails in any area that shows there is something fundamentally amiss... it also may imply that even where it is 'useful' a flaw is possibly being overlooked. Example: A model saying the sun revolves around the earth can be useful for functions... but still wrong. - as we continue to use the defective model we propagate errors. A model saying that invisible strings hold objects to the earth may have functionality... but its still wrong. Simply put... the 'usefulness' of a bad model is questionable.
I'm familiar with Godel...and yes - nothing can ever be 'proven' completely. I've argued this point with people before.. that science has never proven anything.. it doesn't even presume to - it instead documents tendencies that are so far statistically reliable and to date repeatable. It all reminds me of Zeno.. we can definitely 'prove' what is incorrect.. and do it often. Gravity has so far been a reliable theory.. but can't be 'proven'. But this isn't a debate since I imagine we are in agreement here...
''we can only observe and refine our models.''
My problem with this.. is if your model is fundamentally off base.. no matter of refinement will fix the model... only discovering the proper model will correct it. These incorrect models may serve you by giving proper predictions for awhile... but in the end .. after enough inconsistencies expose themselves..the only fix will be crumpling up the paper and starting over.
'the evidence is steadily piling up in evolution 's favor'
This seems to be entirely perspective... and it seems no matter how I phrase it - that perspective won't change. The theory of evolution had predictions... the fossil record does not match those predictions. Although it depends on what you call a 'transitional' fossil... and it also depends on how much supernatural ability is placed in mutation. That sounds harsh, but I didn't know a better way to put it.. I give examples and they generally get ignored - to assume that a fish would develop 4 symmetrical fins into some type of hands / legs implies a leap of faith. The fish has no idea what it's trying for and it also has done it 4 times simultaneously.. or in the least 2. Such a transformation would take you from a well working fin to a poorly working hand / foot in the in between stages. Those stages would be lengthy.. and you would have to assume that this creature survived for many generations with what would clearly be a defect. This problem would persist for 1000's.. maybe 100's of thousands of years before the metamorphosis is complete. The problem is more difficult when imagining the development of organs.. lungs for example would involve multiple structures... not simply a lung. As I've mentioned before you would need to develop the brain to control the lungs.. the nerves.. whole body structures would need to re-arrange to provide for the lung's placement.. can we even speculate at this point the vast number of DNA changes which would need to occur to provide a 'simple' lung? 100's of thousands of strands of DNA would need to be altered... those controlling the growth of wildly different parts of the body. I still think the key is inside 'junk DNA'.... for example - notice that every hair on your body grows to different lengths... each has somewhere a programming.. Evolution is an insult to this complexity... It takes a very surface level approach to things - though it may sound reasonable that a arm get longer.. or a thumb change it's orientation.. it neglects to fully appreciate the massive number of changes which must occur to facilitate this change - EVERY change.
to be continued...
The fossils we look at do not portray this change in any fashion.. they portray a wide range of fully functional forms.. many still existing.. some extinct.. but none giving a reason to assume metamorphosis - only variation and similarity. If you give me enough ape and human skeletons.. I'm positive I can infer a metamorphosis... but as I mentioned above with Zeno - there are many ways to 'prove' a lie. How many variations of fish no longer exist? How many have we still not discovered? It's clear to me that if you have a gene for any given trait - such as one which defines a fin's shape - that everywhere across the spectrum would occur. Big fins.. small fins.. this implies changes in the phenotype.. the 'playing out' of characteristics.. if I lined the small fins to big fins.. that doesn't imply evolution .
And the same type of assumptions occur in genetics... we see two animals which have similarities.. and then we compare their genes - and lo and behold - they are similar!... (although actually there's much evidence of just the opposite lately..but neither concludes anything - since the differences can be claimed as 'evolution' in the same way as similarities can be...)
So if differences can be seen as 'evolution'.... and similarities can be seen as 'evolution'... well, now we can clearly see that we have an entirely unfalsifiable theory, and an unfalsifiable theory is not a theory at all by scientific standards.
That is an Impasse. So out of complete frustration... those like me point to the only things we can to insist it's design... that the mechanism proposed simply can not result in the organisms we see. These are some of my arguments.. no one else's
1) Mutation is canceled deliberately by DNA whenever possible. It error corrects for clear reasons.. random mutation tends to logically result in disease or deformity - since DNA has no 'plan' and thus the majority of errors will either be neutral.. or destructive. It's more difficult to accidentally produce an improvement... Equivalent to having a vast number of neutral or bad spots on the chessboard.. and 1 that is good. For this reason DNA attempts to avoid this 'mechanism'
2) As mentioned.. a simple one line switch can at times produce an improvement.. but then we reach a barrier - the barrier is that a substantial improvement would require a vast alteration of DNA in widely varying areas of the code... something that I would think no scientist would think likely.
3) DNA has revealed itself to be ridiculously complex... enough so that 'intelligent' beings are struggling with understanding how it functions. The implications are obvious.. but yet there are those who persist that mutation and death lead to this... both death and mutation are clearly destructive mechanisms - yet at times they form the most sophisticated conscious beings?
4) Even this concept known as 'random' mutation is a complete farce.. or at least a blatant misnomer. We have no evidence of anything random occurring (quantum physics seems to be changing that though.. with it's probabilities..) At least in the Newtonian sense.. nothing random has occurred - A coin flip is decidedly deterministic... wind velocity, inertia... etc. Even if we were to have a mechanism that produces 'random' mutation.. it isn't random.. it's a law of cause and effect - which implies that such laws are built into nature. Where do these laws originate?
“1) Mutation is canceled deliberately by DNA whenever possible. It error corrects for clear reasons.. random mutation tends to logically result in disease or deformity - since DNA has no 'plan' and thus the majority of errors will either be neutral.. or destructive. It's more difficult to accidentally produce an improvement... Equivalent to having a vast number of neutral or bad spots on the chessboard.. and 1 that is good. For this reason DNA attempts to avoid this 'mechanism'”
Then how do you explain how E.Coli was able to metabolize citric acid? Mutation can result in disease, but it can also have no damaging impact… and even a positive impact at times.
“2) As mentioned.. a simple one line switch can at times produce an improvement.. but then we reach a barrier - the barrier is that a substantial improvement would require a vast alteration of DNA in widely varying areas of the code... something that I would think no scientist would think likely.”
This is where the time scale comes in. A great deal of time is needed for drastically different features to evolve, in more complex animals this is vastly longer then the lifespan of a human being (even when that human being acts to direct. Domestication is strong evidence for how species change over time in response to environmental pressures…
“3) DNA has revealed itself to be ridiculously complex... enough so that 'intelligent' beings are struggling with understanding how it functions. The implications are obvious.. but yet there are those who persist that mutation and death lead to this... both death and mutation are clearly destructive mechanisms - yet at times they form the most sophisticated conscious beings?”
Just because something is very complex does not mean that it is automatically designed. The movement of water molecules in the ocean is vastly more complex then the DNA molecule… is it designed? And what is the exact cutoff for complexity… how far can random elements go before it becomes impossible to go further?
“4) Even this concept known as 'random' mutation is a complete farce.. or at least a blatant misnomer.”
It is random in the sense that the variables impacting the mutation are far to many to be calculated.
“Where do these laws originate?”
My response is ‘We don’t know yet, but we are working on it’
Your response “An undetectable, all powerful entity set things in motion using powers beyond our ken, for a purpose that we can never know, and had a bunch of nomads write down what he wanted in a way ambiguous enough that people thousands of years later could doubt his existence… also those who do doubt his existence will be tortured for all eternity after they die, even though he designed them to doubt…” and I’m just supposed to trust you on that one.
How is that different from what the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindi, Janinists, Taoists, Shaminsts, Pagans, Wiccians, Satanists, Zoaristerists, Reilians, Scientologists, Voodoo practitioners, Asgardians, Gnostics, Jews… say?
A great bit from philosopher AC Grayling:
“Science is the outcome of being prepared to live without certainty and therefore a mark of maturity. It embraces doubt and lose ends.”
I know and accept that we don’t have all the answers, that even if there is a ‘one answer’ I am most unlikely to live long enough to see it… nothing would be more boring to me then a universe where all questions had been answered.
“The fossils we look at do not portray this change in any fashion.. they portray a wide range of fully functional forms.. many still existing.. some extinct.. but none giving a reason to assume metamorphosis - only variation and similarity.”
Except when you lay them out chronologically. Then you can see the slow changes from one form to another. How else do you explain the absence of higher forms in older rock?
“if I lined the small fins to big fins.. that doesn't imply evolution .”
Unless you like the changes up chronologically and can see where the fin of a given species grows larger over time (or becomes smaller).
And the same type of assumptions occur in genetics... we see two animals which have similarities.. and then we compare their genes - and lo and behold - they are similar!... (although actually there's much evidence of just the opposite lately..but neither concludes anything - since the differences can be claimed as 'evolution' in the same way as similarities can be...)
[Citation needed] for that ‘evidence of just the opposite’ bit. How can you model the differences, without just a ‘God did it’.
“So if differences can be seen as 'evolution'.... and similarities can be seen as 'evolution'... well, now we can clearly see that we have an entirely unfalsifiable theory, and an unfalsifiable theory is not a theory at all by scientific standards.”
Sure you can. You just have to show evidence of a creature at a time when there are no evolutionary links to it. Like finding a human skeleton dateable to 100 mya.
“That is an Impasse. So out of complete frustration... those like me point to the only things we can to insist it's design... that the mechanism proposed simply can not result in the organisms we see. These are some of my arguments.. no one else's”
Quite a few people disagree with you that the mechanism ‘cannot result in the organisms that we see’ (myself included) . The evidence shown seems quite reasonable in explaining how that can happen to me… and just saying ‘no it doesn’t’ isn’t going to convince me otherwise.
''How do you describe the expansion of the universe in terms of Gods actions?''
Obviously any reference to the Bible is frowned upon by science ..and I understand.. but in this case it seems incredibly appropriate... how do I describe the expansion?... funny you should ask...
At least eleven times and in at least 5 chapters, the Bible says that God “stretched out” or “stretches out” the heavens. - it's clear that this was an intentional repetition... it was for emphasis.
NOTE: The Bible is not meant to be anything but a verification of God's existence - and of course a moral code to live by... not a textbook for technological advance. It isn't going to get into the background radiation... or the genome.. etc. But it clearly describes that the universe was created in exactly this form.. but a more condensed state - then it was 'stretched'. This stretching helps explain in a simple way many aspects of the universe that science is having trouble with.
First.. a big bang model would assume a form of singularity - while a biblical version implies that the entire universe was made as is... condensed - then stretched... this distinction to the model causes a very different result.
We would not need to be seeking 'lumps' in the singularity for this model for one.. the singularity had difficulties since the resulting universe would be far too uniform.
Our current understanding of gas clouds in the universe seems inadequate to produce stars - we have 'theories'.. but to this point the model still has difficulties.. if the stars and planets were truly created in a condensed universe - then stretched.. this would expose why our models fail. Am I suggesting we stop trying to explain it?.. not at all.. go for it - I'm saying we are looking for something which may be forever elusive due to our materialistic model.
Also a simply put problem.. if Black holes were present close to the universe's conception - they would likely have caused the universe to collapse in upon itself before ever reaching this point in it's expansion. In a condensed universe created as is and then near immediately stretched apart doesn't have this problem.
''The daunting problem for theories of structure formation in the Universe is to understand how such huge black holes [3 billion solar masses] and the vast reservoirs of gaseous fuel were assembled so soon after the Big Bang ...” Edwin L. Turner, “Through a Lens Brightly,” Nature, 27 June 2002, p. 905.
“... such black holes indeed formed early in the history of the universe and were already devouring matter voraciously a mere billion years after the Big Bang.” Ron Cowen, “Mature Before Their Time,” Science News, Vol. 163, 1 March 2003, p. 139
Another issue is that science is having difficulty understanding why their is a direct correlation between black holes and the galaxies central bulge (admittedly I don't understand why this is a problem.. but they claim this shouldn't be - I would think a correlation would be a necessity?)
“For reasons not fully understood, it appears that the sizes of central black holes and the masses of their galaxies, especially the central bulges, are almost perfectly in step.” Charles Petit, “Ultra Massive: As Big As It Gets,” Science News, Vol. 174, 25 October 2008, p. 20.
Under the idea of a universe that was made as is - then stretched.. the largest black holes would have the largest galaxies and bulges.. or so it goes anyway =) admittedly I don't understand this argument completely..
If spiral galaxies formed billions of years ago, their arms should be wrapped more tightly around their centers. Also, nearer galaxies should show much more “wrap” than more distant spiral galaxies (due to age). However, if creation was more recent.. and space was recently 'stretched' out, spiral galaxies could appear as they do.
There's actually a much longer list than this.. and considering we don't have documentation of exactly how this 'stretching' occurred... it doesn't provide formulas to verify it =) nor is it suppose to.
None of that is the point.. I'm not suggesting we use the Bible as our only reference manual - I'm saying that it gives us hints to why our model has these flaws.. but science by it's very nature ignores this - since the Bible is immediately ruled 'not reliable' for the basis of such models.
What it does reveal is that the Bible describes a stretched universe far before science ever found evidence of expansion... or we even had reason to suspect it.
If we follow that model.. there should be verifiable evidence in the universe.. a superior (though admittedly simplistic) model.
“Our current understanding of gas clouds in the universe seems inadequate to produce stars - we have 'theories'.. but to this point the model still has difficulties..”
What difficulties?
“if the stars and planets were truly created in a condensed universe - then stretched.. this would expose why our models fail.”
Except that it opens up a whole new bag of questions as to where the stars and planets came from in the first place.
“Am I suggesting we stop trying to explain it?.. not at all.. go for it - I'm saying we are looking for something which may be forever elusive due to our materialistic model.”
How does your model where everything was created as is deal with the origins of that matter, the reason why it distributed as we see it across the sky, and why the expansion is accelerating?
“Also a simply put problem.. if Black holes were present close to the universe's conception - they would likely have caused the universe to collapse in upon itself before ever reaching this point in it's expansion. In a condensed universe created as is and then near immediately stretched apart doesn't have this problem.”
Except that then the black holes would still be very close to each other. Unless, they were created instantaneously; then instantaneously accelerated away from each other. How do you resolve the question of where the matter that went into those objects came from? Where did the energy come from to accelerate those objects away from each other?
''The daunting problem for theories of structure formation in the Universe is to understand how such huge black holes [3 billion solar masses] and the vast reservoirs of gaseous fuel were assembled so soon after the Big Bang ...” Edwin L. Turner, “Through a Lens Brightly,” Nature, 27 June 2002, p. 905.
“... such black holes indeed formed early in the history of the universe and were already devouring matter voraciously a mere billion years after the Big Bang.” Ron Cowen, “Mature Before Their Time,” Science News, Vol. 163, 1 March 2003, p. 139
It is quite interesting… but just because Science has yet to answer a question does not mean that it cannot answer a question.
“Another issue is that science is having difficulty understanding why their is a direct correlation between black holes and the galaxies central bulge (admittedly I don't understand why this is a problem.. but they claim this shouldn't be - I would think a correlation would be a necessity?) “
It is a puzzle… why is there such a close correlation between the mass of a SMBH and the surrounding stellar bulge. What does this say about the distribution of early matter in the universe and how the holes formed?
“Under the idea of a universe that was made as is - then stretched.. the largest black holes would have the largest galaxies and bulges.. or so it goes anyway =) admittedly I don't understand this argument completely..”
Except the question of where the matter cam from and why it was so distributed across the cosmos.
“If spiral galaxies formed billions of years ago, their arms should be wrapped more tightly around their centers. Also, nearer galaxies should show much more “wrap” than more distant spiral galaxies (due to age). However, if creation was more recent.. and space was recently 'stretched' out, spiral galaxies could appear as they do. “
[Citation needed] on that spiral arm bit.
“None of that is the point.. I'm not suggesting we use the Bible as our only reference manual - I'm saying that it gives us hints to why our model has these flaws.. but science by it's very nature ignores this - since the Bible is immediately ruled 'not reliable' for the basis of such models.”
True. Just as it does the Torah, Koran, Diamond/Heart Sutras, and other holy texts… because they cannot be independently verified.
“What it does reveal is that the Bible describes a stretched universe far before science ever found evidence of expansion... or we even had reason to suspect it.”
Because the statement does not describe an accelerating cosmos?
“If we follow that model.. there should be verifiable evidence in the universe.. a superior (though admittedly simplistic) model.”
In what way? All you have stated is that the universe (stars and all) popped into existence on the whim of an undetectable entity. How does this model describe the forces behind the accelerating Cosmos, the formation of matter, or why visible matter makes up such a small portion of the universe?
''How does this model describe the forces behind the accelerating Cosmos, the formation of matter, or why visible matter makes up such a small portion of the universe?''
What would need to be done is a comparison of our universe.. and a model based around this to find out. We wouldn't need to know 'where the energy came from'... we would simply extrapolate back based on the assumption that this truly is how it occurred... We can extrapolate back to a condensed golf ball size bunch of matter - right? It's just that we have found flaws with that model... so we would instead take a model where the universe was 'as is' and then stretched.. and see if this model removes the current flaws of the big bang theory..
that's all.... easier said than done? Not really.. take the known universe.. and the expansion - trace it back.. rather than assuming a bias of some concentrated chunk of matter - just take the math where it leads you.. and see if a condensed 'as is' universe is a viable model..
“It's just that we have found flaws with that model... so we would instead take a model where the universe was 'as is' and then stretched.. and see if this model removes the current flaws of the big bang theory..”
Yet already that theory adds a whole host of unanswered questions. If the universe just ‘popped’ into being as is then where did the pop come from? Why did it pop in the configuration that it did? Why is visible matter only 4% of the matter in the universe? Why did the universe start expanding? How big was the initial universe? If everything in the universe popped into being then why didn’t gravity pull everything together?
“Not really.. take the known universe.. and the expansion - trace it back.. rather than assuming a bias of some concentrated chunk of matter - just take the math where it leads you.. and see if a condensed 'as is' universe is a viable model..”
Except that you now have to explain how the universe appeared ‘as is’, how big it was, did the stars appear intact and already moving? What caused the static initial universe to start expanding? How does the background microwave radiation fit into it?
“At least eleven times and in at least 5 chapters, the Bible says that God “stretched out” or “stretches out” the heavens. - it's clear that this was an intentional repetition... it was for emphasis.”
So the Bible does contain physically / experimentally verifiable information. The real proof would be to take something stated in the Bible and use it to predict something, rather then going back and interpreting Bible passages in the light of new physical observations.
Also… since these passages are among those that you believe should be taken as literal truth (rather then symbolic truth) how can you verify that it is literally true without relying on recent observations… could someone who lived before Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding come to the same conclusion?
“NOTE: The Bible is not meant to be anything but a verification of God's existence - and of course a moral code to live by... not a textbook for technological advance.”
But it is describing physical occurrences. According to you, the passage about stretching out the heavens could have been used to predict the expanding cosmos before the observations were made that demonstrated that.
“It isn't going to get into the background radiation... or the genome.. etc.”
Why not? That would surely act as verification of Gods existence.
“But it clearly describes that the universe was created in exactly this form.. but a more condensed state - then it was 'stretched'. This stretching helps explain in a simple way many aspects of the universe that science is having trouble with.”
Except that the only explanation for how things originally happened was ‘God did it’
“First.. a big bang model would assume a form of singularity - while a biblical version implies that the entire universe was made as is... condensed - then stretched... this distinction to the model causes a very different result.”
Why did it have to be created as is then stretched?
“We would not need to be seeking 'lumps' in the singularity for this model for one.. the singularity had difficulties since the resulting universe would be far too uniform.”
How so? Quantum Mechanics describes how even in a seemingly uniform system there are distortions (lumps)… and once you blow those distortions up across billions of light years?
I said: "First, I would say that a large volume of what we know from science is the result of a search for proof of God's existence."
You replied: How so? It is the search for a better understanding of the physical world... and the basic principles require that for something to be considered it must be observable / measurable.
As I already have covered...if our models end up being unresolved.. or inadequate - and we find that an ' intelligent design ' model is the only one which solves the equation.... then that is the model that is needed. Although, intelligent design in DNA is not the only place to look - any Biblical implication can be sought out.. such as the condensed and then expanded universe model I just described. Since nothing in science can be 'proven', then it truly isn't a difficulty that God cannot be proven either.. it can instead be verifiable by testing the model and finding if it is consistent. I'm sure that God's hand can be tested for and located in far more places than simply DNA and universal expansion. If seeking evidence diligently and earnestly it could be found in vast numbers of places. Mitochondrial eve was something science sought and then by bad math claimed to be some 150,000- 200,000 years back... when the math was corrected - the information presented previously was never altered. They preferred leaving her at 150/200kya - even though the corrected formula would suggest more of a 6,000 year ago date... I admit that I'm unsure any search for 'eve' is conducted with a proper model at this point in our genetic understanding.. but it definitely is wrong for them to push the incorrect age rather than the biblical one their research implied.
“Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated [previously] that ‘mitochondrial Eve’—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.” Ann Gibbons, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” Science, Vol. 279, 2 January 1998, p. 29.
“If molecular evolution is really neutral at these sites [occurs at a constant rate at all sites], such a high mutation rate would indicate that Eve lived about 6500 years ago—a figure clearly incompatible with current theories on human origins.” Laurence Loewe and Siegfried Scherer, “Mitochondrial Eve: The Plot Thickens,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 12, 11 November 1997, p. 422.
“Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr [million years], is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses [evolution studies]. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an average age of the mtDNA MRCA [most recent common ancestor] of only ~6,500 y.a. [years ago], clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans.” Thomas J. Parsons et al., “A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region,” Nature Genetics, Vol. 15 April 1997, p. 365.
So.. my point is - the research is debatable.. the very concept of it is questionable.. But if their results point to 6,500 years ago - then why is it that at many sources.. like even wikipedia - the other age is presented? Why? Because we must keep pushing evolution.. at any cost - anything less is heretical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
Why even research if the data is just going to be fudged for your own purposes?
but I am tired =) I'm gonna watch some shows --- but I'll be back tomorrow.
Like I've been saying.. I have no intent of forcing any belief on anyone... it's irrelevant to me really. But there's plenty of information out there... and there's plenty of reason to not blindly trust our accumulated scientific theories.. an open and inquisitive mind is essential to finding truth - and a desire to study every side in great detail.
simply put - an E Coli developing an ability to metabolize citric acid is not even vaguely similar to the macro changes evolution proposes. As I've mentioned about science 's track record.. and also our relative ignorance of the genome, to me there still could be many other explanations other than evolution. Our understanding of DNA is still vastly over-rated, we recently realized that junk DNA isn't exactly junk.... far more junk DNA exists than the DNA we've studied. What I mean here is... it's improper for microbiologists to assume only one option.. especially in such a wide open field. They are in a rush to confirm any 'evolution' since the community is so eager to embrace it.
Even if it were legitimate 'evolution', studies have been shown that steps beyond such simple evolutionary feats become exponentially unreasonable. I believe it was Michael Behe that did a nice paper on it illustrating this idea.. and though my memory of how the whole process works is faded (the paper is quite complicated) I recall that after only a few mutations you end up in a situation that would require trillions of generations. When you consider species that have 20 year generations.. that becomes theoretically impossible even with 4 and 1/2 billion years - and the type of mutations he was speaking of were only several steps removed from the like the E Coli exhibited- not the evolution of entirely new body plans and organs.
"an E Coli developing an ability to metabolize citric acid is not even vaguely similar to the macro changes evolution proposes."
How so? It may not be as amazing as sprouting legs but it is a drastic change in the biological processes of the bacteria. It's like a carnivore becoming a herbivore.
"it's improper for microbiologists to assume only one option.. "
They don't 'assume' only one option, they use the option that has the most supporting evidence behind it.
"studies have been shown that steps beyond such simple evolutionary feats become exponentially unreasonable. "
[Citation Needed]
"that becomes theoretically impossible even with 4 and 1/2 billion years - and the type of mutations he was speaking of were only several steps"
Yet the fossil record shows otherwise.
For those not familiar the below refers to a long term (20 odd years) experiment in evolution run by Richard Lenski at Michigan State University. Where in populations of E. Coli bacteria were exposed to citric acid, which wild E. Coli cannot metabolize. Through the course of the experiment it was discovered that the E. Coli was adapting to the citric acid, using it for energy (which wild E. Coli does not).
"I'll say! In laboratories we managed to make one questionable evolution .. the case of E Coli.. after tons of generations and time... and then could not force a single other change... The change they caused in it hardly equates to evolution when compared to even the tiniest of cambrian developments."
How is that "questionable"? The E. Coli, in an environment rich in citric acid evolved to metabolize the citric acid, an ability that wild E. Coli lack.
But that was a change over 20 years, hardly even a fraction of a second compared to the 10+ million years of the 'Cambrian Explosion'. Small changes like the E. Coli magnified over millions of years lead to massive changes.
"on the other hand consider an animal with a brain / a heart / a nervous system / eyes / gills / a backbone / a head / a chest / tentacles / and more... these are the truly drastic changes."
But many of those features were not in their modern form, or had even emerged yet. There were creatures with nervous systems before the Cambrian and backbones did not emerge until much later. Tentacles existed before the Cambrian, as did primitive gills. Many of the features found were already existent in more primitive forms.
"Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists believed it had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. Evolutionists reasoned the coelacanth crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal."
And when the living Coelacanths were found the theories were modified.
"Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated ANY (key word there) rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70 million years old. It was an INDEX FOSSIL "
Key word there is 'was'.
"Today, coelacanth fossils look like captured coelacanths despite more than 70 million years of 'evolution'. If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Yet fossils of them are scarce.... which questions the age given to them."
Fossilization is a rare process, and our access to fossils is restricted to areas of the world where we can dig (we cannot dig for them at the bottom of the ocean).
"Examples like these are numerous.. though any disparity in evolution's theory is either made to agree... or not reported to the media . The coelecanth is a rarity for it's publicity."
What examples?
"If a mammal were found in cambrian soil.. then it is assumed the sediment is corrupted.. or the date is changed - any manner they can use to preserve the common index and theory."
Yes, because once dated mammal remains are found to be far younger then the surrounding soil. To demonstrate that there were mammals during the Cambrian the remains would have to be dated to that time. The age of the surrounding material is only part of the age determination process.
"Examples include the Calaveras skull, the Castenedolo skeletons, Reck’s skeleton, the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, the Vertesszöllos fossil and others.. Evolutionists either ignore the remains or develop some stretch to preserve the theory and time line... speaking of stretches.."
Can you provide citations for those? All the references that I found put them as hoaxes.
Dating issues are infamous - because first they rely on something we have no way of knowing.. the status of a rock's chemical make up throughout time. It's nice to speculate.. but it doesn't constitute proof... even if you compare other chemicals and arrive at a similar age - that in no way validates the original assumption.
You talk about how flowering plants came later than the cambrian... how about when we find pollinating insects and fossil flies embedded in amber, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved? The insects show a remarkable similarity to their 'descendants'. Is it fair to just allow them to 'take it back'... say 'oops we were wrong'...? Doesn't an error imply there could be much larger errors?
In a laboratory, some 30 to 40 dormant, but living, bacteria species were removed from intestines of bees encased in amber from the Dominican Republic. When cultured, the bacteria grew! The amber is dated as 25 to 40 million years old..... truly amazing =) Metabolism rates, even in dormant bacteria, are not zero
Arizona's petrified trees contain fossilized nests of bees and wasp cocoons.. the trees are supposedly 220 million years old... while bees and flowering plants evolved 100 million years later.
Spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian rocks In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian rocks..
Coal beds show flowering plants in ' coal balls' 100 million years before the coal bed formed..
You know.. honestly I haven't had time to check all of these ( not like it's possible to verify a claim anyway.. part of my point)... but I'm eager to look up what I can find on all of them... I enjoy it..The only consistency I find with the dating is inconsistency... and it's easy for me to believe the claims since I've verified others in the past (the only time a claim is considered credible unfortunately is if a scientist who is biased toward evolution made it... so it's difficult to find one arguing against his own beliefs..but they're still quite abundant)
Fossil beds in South Carolina.. with a wide assortment of animals .. dinosaurs and human tools in phosphate... the claims are endless.. do you really insist they are all wrong?
With time the dates of these and other fossils will be pulled back to the cambrian or even pre-cambrian I bet... As I originally stated - there are plenty of scientists who believe that the other phyla are likely to be placed in the cambrian explosion .. they just haven't been yet. But I still insist that just what science has admitted about the cambrian already is enough drastic change in a short enough time that evolution's process could not occur. That's still being nice... I don't believe it could occur at all... because all 'transitional' fossils are not 'transitions' but fully functional animals designed for their exact purposes.. like Ida.. To form a new leg or a new organ would require a vast number of in between stages... the fossil record is robust but still lacks what one would presume to see... If you can't see that, I feel like you must not be looking! How many changes lead to a Giraffe? Apes themselves? Dinosaurs? How many changes would you anticipate it takes?... How would you even get from a to b?
Anyway... I'm off to look up some of these original sources on this info =)