Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Evolution And Bible Don't Mix.

Expand Messages
  • David Bowman
    ... Actually jeebs is the dupe of other fundy bibliolators who have gone before him. ... Nonsense. ... Jeebs confuses matters of religious faith with matters
    Message 1 of 438 , Apr 1, 2010
      Regarding jeebs' response to Dinohunter:

      >> DINOHUNTER: I undermine the teachings of the church? ROFL
      >> Thats a good one Laurie. Evolution being a fact has nothing to
      >> do with the teachings of Christ and Salvation through Him. For
      >> you to think so shows me that you really have missed whats
      >> important in knowing Christ and having Him in your life.
      > jeebsthebutler: I believe you have been duped by the
      > evolutionist propaganda Dino.

      Actually jeebs is the dupe of other fundy bibliolators who have
      gone before him.

      >The theory of evolution can not be tested or observed.


      > Also the creation account can not be tested or observed. Faith
      > is essential to believe either. Also they can not be combined.

      Jeebs confuses matters of religious faith with matters of science.

      > The reason I am against the teaching of "evolution" as a fact
      > is, first off, it is *not* a fact plain and simple,

      All the evidence points to it actually being a fact.

      > I've done much research from both sides,

      Nonsense. *You*? Research? Please. What "research" have you actually really done, jeebs?

      > and the supporting evidence is non-existent from what I've
      > seen, the "answers" the evolutionary writers give are
      > unsatisfying to say the least,

      How could *you* actually be able to evaluate the evidence?

      > at best it is a hypothesis which has failed miserably.

      Failed? What failure? Be specific.

      > On top of that it could never be known exactly how it all
      > happened from a naturalists perspective,

      So what? Science doesn't know everything. The whole point of
      scientific investigation is to find out the matter.

      > thus they must place their faith in the assumption that the
      > hypothetical process of "evolution" is true and base all their
      > tests off of that assumption.

      There's that 'faith' word again. Faith is a *religious* concept, not a scientific one. In scientific matters scientists accept or reject propositions based on the preponderance of the evidence and the parsimony of the explanation rather than invoking faith.

      > The story of evolution tells us we're a byproduct of time,
      > chance,and natural processes

      Science, by its very nature, only concerns itself with natural processes and invokes only natural explanations for them.

      > that you can't see(a belief in God or gods causing or guiding
      > these things is optional).

      Thus scientific scenarios are compatible with a wide variety of religious viewpoints.

      > The Bible tells us that God purposely created the heaven,earth,
      > and everything in them in 6 days and He rested on the 7th day

      Of couse jeebs presumes to know what God would have us understand by it by presuming the silliest most naive interpretation that diminishes God and His character the most.

      > (a belief in God is essential) Haven't you read this Dino?

      There goes jeebs again supposing that his debate oponents haven't read the Bible.

      > Exudos 20: 7-10
      > 7 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 8 Six days shalt
      > thou labour, and do all thy work; 9 but the seventh day is a
      > sabbath unto the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any
      > manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy
      > man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy
      > stranger that is within thy gates; 10 for in six days the
      > LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,
      > and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the LORD blessed the
      > sabbath day, and hallowed it.

      "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." (Jesus Christ)

      > jeebsthebutler: The Bible tells us that God created Man in His
      > own image on the 6th day and that Mankind was the last
      > creation.

      Again jeebs presumes to know, a priori, what God would have us understand about the passage.

      > 24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature
      > after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the
      > earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the
      > beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their
      > kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its
      > kind; and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said: 'Let us
      > make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have
      > dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
      > air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over
      > every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27 And
      > God created man in His own image, in the image of God created
      > He him; male and female created He them. 28 And God blessed
      > them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and
      > replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the
      > fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
      > living thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 29 And God said:
      > 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is
      > upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the
      > fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food; 30
      > and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air,
      > and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there
      > is a living soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.'
      > And it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that He had made,
      > and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there
      > was morning, the sixth day.

      That's nice. But is has no bearing whatsoever on matters of what science may or may not conclude based on the actual evidence, rather than based on a prior naive hermeneutic of words in a book.

      > jeebsthebutler: Do you think Christ believed in evolution Dino?

      Did Christ believe in heliocentric solar system?, atoms?, germs?, general relativity?, quantum mechanics? Who knows? Who cares? What relevance would his human understanding about matters of the natural world have on anything? Jesus was not a scientist. God did not incarnate Himself among human beings to correct their understandings of scientific matters. He did so to point us to Himself and to save us from our sins.

      > Matthew 19:3-6
      > 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying
      > unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every
      > cause?
      > 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he
      > which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
      > 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,
      > and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
      > flesh?
      > 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What
      > therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

      That's nice. It is also quite ironic, in light of Christ's explicit teaching here about divorce, that the divorce rate among fundies is higher than among the general population, and significantly higher than among atheists. Perhaps it would behoove fundies to better heed Christ's words here.

      > jeebsthebutler: The "theory" of evolution undermines the Bible
      > with naturalistic "explanations" which obviously can not
      > explain God's awesome power,

      Actually, that is precisely what science does. It explains God's awesome power.

      > and causes those who are not sure what to believe to become
      > confused and lose faith in the Everlasting Word of God.

      Again, jeeb's is confused as to just what the "Everlasting Word of God" is. It is the 2nd person of the Godhead, i.e. Christ, not the Bible. See the first chapter of John's gospel.

      > Here's a hypothetical question for you Dino..if it came down
      > to it which would you choose, Science or the Word of God?

      Or? Science ought be neither here nor there in matters of religious faith. Anything else is sacrilege

      Dave Bowman
    • Dan Carlton
      On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:09 PM, tinroad66@yahoo.com [creation_evolution_debate] ... When is a Whale a Whale?
      Message 438 of 438 , Jan 3

        On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:09 PM, tinroad66@... [creation_evolution_debate] <creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

        ----Carlton Lie About Gould---

        "I didn't say he didn't, but he does admit the absence of transitional fossils. "
        ~ Dan Carlton, lying about Gould.

        ----The Truth---
        "If you had given me a blank piece of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed impossible in theory." 
        ~ SJ Gould, Natural History magazine, May 1994.

        ---Larger Scientific Context
        whale evolution (presented in order of first appearance in the fossil  record):
        modern whales


        When is a Whale a Whale?

        Evolutionists are desperate in their search to find transitional or intermediate forms to validate their theory of evolution. If, as they believe, millions of species of plants and animals have evolved during hundreds of millions of years, many billions times billions of transitional forms would have lived and died during those hundreds of millions of years, and thus there should be no difficulty in finding fossils of a very large number of these transitional forms. In fact, our museums, among the 250,000 different fossil species in their collections, should have tens of thousands of transitional forms. One would not have to be an expert paleontologist and anatomist to recognize, for example, a structure halfway between a forelimb and a wing, or something halfway between an ordinary jaw of a reptile and the bill of a duck-billed dinosaur. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, however, when it comes to these coveted transitional forms, they must do much with little or nothing.

        This situation is strikingly true concerning the origin of whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals.

        In one of Romer's concluding statements in his discussion of the sub-ungulates (conies, elephants, sea cows), he says, "conies, proboscideans, and sirenians were already distinct groups at the time when they first appear in the fossil record."[1] Olson states that if we seek the ancestries of the marine mammals we run into a blank wall as far as intermediate stages between land and sea are concerned. [2] His remark included the seals, dolphins, and whales.

        Speaking of whales, Colbert said, "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone." [3]

        In their eagerness to produce evidence to bridge this enormous gap, and in doing so not only to verify their expectations but also to enhance their reputations and their careers, we do not question the honesty of evolutionists. We do question their objectivity and their conclusions, based on scanty and questionable evidence. In 1983, headlines in newspapers all over the world, based on an article published by Gingerich and coworkers, [4] trumpeted the discovery of a so-called primitive whale which established a link between whales and their hypothetical land-mammal ancestor, the hoofed mammalian carnivore, Mesonyx. The fossil material consisted solely of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper- and lower-cheek teeth. The creature was given the name Pakicetus inachus.

        This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus are dominated by land mammals. Non-mammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental, rather than a marine environment, as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature. It is highly significant that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal, rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directly under water, nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving. The authors stated that the teeth resemble those of the mesonychids, which possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter. On the basis of this evidence, the idea was challenged that Pakicetus was anything other than a land mammal, with no relationship to marine mammals.[5]

        The latest claim concerning the possible discovery of a link between land mammals and marine mammals was contained in an article published in January 1994, in Science.[6] The article served as a basis, once again, for newspaper headlines throughout the U.S. For example, the Cleveland Plain Dealer featured the report in an article published in that paper January 16, 1994, with the bold headline, "Fossil Thought to Belong to Walking Whale—Creature May Be Missing Link." Since whales don't walk on land, skeptics would immediately question the basis for designating this creature a whale, whatever it may have been. As a matter of fact, in a commentary published in the same issue of Science as the original scientific report, the writer states, "The authors provide some evidence for the seemingly preposterous conclusion that archaic whales were capable of walking on land."[7] The investigators gave their find the name Ambulocetus natans, from ambulate (to walk), cetus (whale), and natans (swimming). They thus believe that this creature both walked on land and swam in the water. In their report, the authors state: "Unlike modern cetaceans, Ambulocetus certainly was able to walk on land, probably in a way similar to modern sea lions or fur seals. In water, it combined aspects of the locomotion of modern seals, otters, and cetaceans.... As such, Ambulocetus represents a critical intermediate between land mammals and marine cetaceans."[8]

        It is reported that Hans Thewissen, an assistant professor of anatomy at Northeastern Ohio Medical School; Tasseer Hussain, professor of anatomy at Harvard University; and M. Arif, a geologist of the Geological Survey of Pakistan, happened upon the fossil during a 1992 dig in hills west of Islamabad, Pakistan. The Plain Dealer, along with its article, has a good picture of the fossil. When some of the ICR staff looked at the picture with the knowledge that Thewissen and fellow workers called this creature a whale, they laughed. Evolutionists may claim that this was because of ignorance of subtle distinctions of anatomy; on the other hand, associating the word "whale" with a creature with large and powerful front and hind legs does seem a bit ludicrous to skeptics. In their Science article,[6] Thewissen and coworkers state that Ambulocetus was about the size of a male sea lion, weighing about 650 lbs. and had a robust radius and ulna (the two bones in the upper forearm). They report that the structure of the forearm would have allowed powerful elbow extension by triceps, and that, unlike modem cetaceans, elbow, wrist, and digital joints were flexible and synovial (lubricated). The hand was long and broad, with five digits. The femur was short and stout, and the feet were enormous. The toes were terminated by a short phalanx carrying a convex hoof. They suggest that unlike modern cetaceans, Ambulocetus had a long tail, and that it probably did not possess flukes.

        The authors state, "Unlike modern cetaceans, Ambulocetus certainly was able to walk on land, probably in a way similar to modern sea lions or fur seals. In water, it combined aspects of the locomotion of modern seals, otters, and cetaceans: Like modern cetaceans, it swam by moving its spine up and down; but like seals, the main propulsive surface was provided by its feet."[8] One wonders what in the world a whale was doing with hind limbs that terminated in a foot with hooves, or with any kind of powerful forelimbs and hind limbs at all.

        It is reported that the fossil of Ambulocetus was found in a silt and mud-stone bed which contained impressions of leaves and abundant Turritella, a marine gastropod.[6] This would suggest that it lived near the seashore, feeding possibly on land animals and/or plants, and perhaps foraging into shallow seas to feed on gastropods and molluscs. They report that the fossil beds are lower-to-middle Eocene beds, and about 120 meters (approximately 390 feet) higher than those in which Pakucetus was found. Berta, in her comments on the paper by Thewissen, et al, gives an age of 52 million years for the sediments in Pakistan where Ambulocetus was found. Thewissen and his coworkers in their paper mention an age of 52 million years for the age of Pakicetus, which they refer to as the "oldest cetacean." Ambulocetus, bearing large forelimbs and hooved hind limbs, was found in strata nearly 400 feet higher than Pakicetus.It therefore cannot be older. Pakicetus is called the oldest cetacean. Yet it is said that Ambulocetus documents transitional modes of locomotion in the evolution of whales. Confused? So are we. It is reported that the teeth resemble those of other archeocetes, which evolutionists believe were either archaic whales or ancestral to whales. The teeth of archeocetes are, however, so similar to mesonychid ungulates, believed to be wolf-like carnivorous mammals, that two of the archeocetes, Gandakasia and Ichthykstes, known only from teeth, were originally classified as mesonychids.[7]

        G. A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales, while maintaining that Archeoceti occupy an intermediate position between terrestrial mammals and typical Cetacea, states that the problem of the phylogenedc relationship between Archeoceti and modern Cetacea is a highly controversial issue. He reports that a number of authors consider that the Archeoceti are a completely isolated group having nothing in common with typical Cetacean.[9] If this opinion is correct, then the archeocetes, supposedly archaic whales, were not whales at all and did not give rise to whales (cetaceans).

        A search of texts on mammals for fossils of creatures resembling Ambulocetus failed to produce one closely resembling Ambulocetus, although Allodesmus, an extinct aquatic carnivore believed to have preceded walruses, bears some resemblance.[10]

        Perhaps we should not be surprised that Thewissen and coworkers would dare to call Ambulocetus a "whale" when we note the fact that Robert Carroll, in his voluminous tome, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, made the incredible statement that "Despite the extreme difference in habitue, it is logical from the standpoint of phylogenetic classification to include the mesonychids among the Cetaceans."[11] Incredible, indeed! The mesonychids were wolf-like, hoofed carnivores that, as far as anyone knows, never went near the water. Carroll states, "Mesonyx was the size and proportions of a wolf and, perhaps, had a similar way of life."[12]Carroll and others believe that the skull shape and the dentition of what they think were early whales resembled mesonychids. They therefore have adopted the mesonychids as the land mammal from which whales evolved. Now Carroll suggests we place the mesonychids in the Cetacea. Presto! These wolf-like animals are now whales! Who says evolutionists have no transitional forms?


        What may we conclude from all of this? Most evolutionists, certain that whales and other aquatic mammals must have evolved from land mammals, would stretch their imagination to whatever extent necessary to declare that Ambulocetus, a creature with powerful forelimbs and hind limbs (the latter bearing hooves), unable to dive to any significant depth or to hear directionally under water, was nevertheless, a whale. On the other hand, not biased by any such presupposition, we conclude that, first of all, it is ridiculous to call the creature a whale, and secondly, that it was certainly not an intermediate between a land mammal and a whale, but was more likely a near-shore carnivore whose exact behavior and habitue is as yet a topic only for speculation.

        When we consider these profound proclamations by evolutionists we should bear in mind that they were equally convinced when they suggested human evolutionary ancestors, such as Ramapithecus, now recognized to be essentially the same as a modern orangutan; Piltdown Man, a fraud that was nothing more than the jawbone of a modern ape and a human skull; Nebraska Man, that turned out to be a pig's tooth; and Neanderthal Man, a supposed primitive subhuman that is now recognized by most paleoanthropologists as fully human, Homo sapiens, who suffered from pathological conditions, such as arthritis and rickets, a vitamin D deficiency. If evolutionists can get an evolutionary ancestor of man from nothing more than a pig's tooth, it should be no challenge to get a whale from a creature that walked on land. 


        [1] A. S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd. Edition, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1966, p. 254.
        [2] E. C. Olson, The Evolution of Life, the New American Library, New York, 1965, p. 178.
        [3] E. H. Colbert, Evolution of the Vertebrates, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1955, p. 303.
        [4] P. D. Gingerich, N.A. Wells, D. E. Russell, and S. M. Ibrahim Shah, Science 220:403-406 (1983).
        [5] D. T. Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, Master Books, Colorado Springs, 1985, pp. 79-81.
        [6] J. G. M. Thewissen, S. T. Hussian, and M. Arif, Science, 263:210-212 (1994).
        [7] Annalisa Berta, Science 263:180(1994).
        [8] J. G. M. Thewissan, et al, ibid., p. 212.
        [9] G. A. Mchedlidze, General Features of the Paleobiological Evolution of Cetacea (translated from the Russian), A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1986, p. 91.
        [10] R. L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1988, p. 483.
        [11] R. L. Carroll, ibid., p. 521.
        [12] R. L. Carroll, ibid., p. 520.


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.