Posted on 02/02/2005 6:19:41 PM PST by curiosity
Genesis 2 seems to say otherwise, but whatever.
However, you still have the problem of Eve. If God put Adam to sleep and removed a rib and then closed his flesh to create Eve. Then clearly Eve did not evolve.
Following St. Augustine, I don't take that passage literally. But even if you do take that literally, there's no conflict with evolution. If Adam evolved, and Eve was supernatuarally made from Adam, then ultimately evolution was part of the process by which Eve was formed. And there's no way a scientist could falsify the proposition that Eve was made from Adam's rib.
We have plant fossils that date back almost to the earliest of fossils, also plant fossils are found in every supposed age, too.
He didn't read the article. If he tried, he didn't understand it. That "whirlwind of fury" was just rude, disruptive behavior. Cyber flatulence.
NO. Genesis is clear that Adam was created after the animals.
It could be due to the fallen state. That ability to synthesize vitamin C may have been lost. There is evidence that animals are degrading due to negative mutations as well. It's possible the same negative mutation occurred in Chimps as well as Humans. Guinea Pigs have also lost that ability.
God could have other reasons as well, but I don't know what those might be.
Under evolutionary theory, you would thing that the ability to synthesize vitamin C would have been selected over not being able to. But that's not what we see. We see the loss of functionality.
you said::
What few real scientists there are at ICR are not biologists and have no clue what evolution is about.
The list is actually 4 or 5 times as long as this::
Creation Scientists in the Biological Sciences
Scientists in the Physical Sciences - Scientist List FAQ
Below is a partial list of creation scientists in the biological sciences. Scientists do not work for ICR unless indicated. (Reprint Info)
Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry (ICR)
He has a B.S. in Chemistry from UCLA and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California (Berkeley). He spent a total of 18 years in biochemical research; with Cornell University Medical College (NYC), with the Virus Laboratory, U of Cal-Berkley and and on the research staff of the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company (Michigan). He has published approximately 40 articles in scientific journals.
For detailed information on his accomplishments, etc., click here.
Back to Top
I was not speaking of "plant fossils"
I was speaking of "flowering plants".
In other words, there were no roses 100 million years ago.
I read it, I dont need to refute every point, all I needed to refute was the basic premise: that Creation and Evolution are compatible.
They are not.
Have any of these people published a peer reviewed article refuting evolution?
The list seems to indicate that some of them have published articles supporting evolution. Whenever they mention speciation, you can be sure evolution is involved.
A quick google tells me I was wrong on the timing, but right on the concept.
Flowering plants evolved during the cretaceous about 140 million yrs ago, and thus, did coexist with the sauropods.
But 140 millions yrs ago is 11 pm, wall clock time, and is quite recent.
Genesis 1 says animals came first. Genesis 2 says the opposite. So either 1)the author was lying and though his readers were idiots 2)the author is an idiot or 3) the author did not intend the stories to be taken literally. Occum's razor suggest door #3.
Wrong question. The proto-dinosaurs were carnivorous and bipedal. It's a legacy thing. This question is the development of vegetarian diet and quadripedalism,
Despite mosses being well represented in the fossil record,4 there is no joy for evolutionists. Margulis has to admit: ‘they do not seem to be the ancestors of the vascular plants [Tracheata] or of the hornworts or liverworts’.5 ‘Like hornworts and mosses, liverworts gave rise to no other plant lineages’.6 The hornworts appear before the mosses in the fossil record, but ‘the origin of hornworts cannot be deduced by examining the fossil record … . Hornworts, mosses and liverworts probably evolved independently of one another’.7
So here, supposedly at the base of the evolutionary tree, there is no evidence whatever of evolution. This is not merely a ‘missing link’, but a yawning chasm (between plants and the chlorophytes), and none of the simplest plants (Bryata) are ancestral either to one another or to any of the ‘higher’ plants (Tracheata)!
Climbing further up the supposed evolutionary tree, Margulis next deals with the Psilophyta, or whisk ferns. Once again, ‘no intermediate fossils have been found … . Chloroplast DNA comparisons suggest that psilophytes’ closest relatives are non-lycophyte vascular plants such as ferns … [but the] chemical evidence … fails to support a strong evolutionary relation between the psilophytes and the ferns … . Ancestral groups for psilophytes … are unknown at present’.8 So, more evidence that the Tracheata did not evolve from the Bryata!
Supposedly next to appear (in the alleged ‘Carboniferous coal forests’) were the tree-like 40 m (130 ft) lycopods. But lycopods ‘are related neither to pines and cedar … nor to mosses’.9 Although they have an excellent fossil record, it gives absolutely no clue as to where they came from.
Margulis next deals with the horsetails, surviving today only as the single herbaceous genus, Equisetum. Once again there is an excellent fossil record. Abundant fossil specimens of tree-like 15 m (50 ft) horsetails are buried in layers labelled ‘Devonian’ and ‘Carboniferous’. But ‘Ancestral groups for … horsetails … are unknown at present’.10
And what about the ferns? ‘Fossilized ferns abound in the fossil record from the Carboniferous through the present’, with some tree-ferns up to 25 m (82 ft) tall.11 But again, not a single clue here to their origin.
Climbing the evolutionary ladder further, we come to the gymnosperms, or naked seed plants. They include four living phyla: the cycads, gingko, conifers (pines) and gnetophytes.
The cycads are well known as garden plants and the group includes the sago palm. Cycads were once considered to be the closest living relatives of flowering plants, related through their common ancestor, the extinct seed ferns. ‘However, seed ferns and living cycads are no longer believed to be direct ancestors of flowering plants’.12 And there is no hint as to their supposed evolutionary origin!
The gingko tree is represented by a single living species, Gingko biloba, in a single genus, in a single family, in a single class, in a single phylum. Its fossil history extends down to ‘Permian’ rocks, and it appears there were once many more species. But here again they appear suddenly and fully formed, leaving evolutionists with no clue as to their origin.13
The conifers or pine trees range from ground-creeping shrubs to the Sequoia redwoods of California—probably the largest living things on the planet, reaching up to 115 m (380 ft) in height and 8 m (26 ft) in diameter. ‘Conifers likely descended from the progymnosperms’.14 And what are the ‘progymnosperms’? Imaginary evolutionary ancestors—there is no evidence that they ever existed! And are the conifers the ancestors of anything? ‘Conifers gave rise to no other plant phyla’.14
Last of the gymnosperms is the curious group, the gnetophytes, consisting of three ‘vastly different’ genera, Ephedra, Gnetum and Welwitschia. They share some characteristics with other gymnosperms and some characteristics with flowering plants. Unfortunately for evolutionists, they appear fully formed in the fossil record, just as ‘vastly different’ as they are today. So there is no fossil evidence of their evolutionary lineage before they appeared, nor after, for ‘Gnetophytes are believed not to have given rise to any other plant lineage’.15
Finally, supposedly at the top of the plant evolutionary tree, we come to the flowering plants, the Anthophyta (or angiosperms), with their unique flowers and fruits. They are ‘the superstars of diversity and abundance’, with possibly as many as a million species, occurring all over the globe. They have an abundant fossil record but, once again, they appear fully formed, with no sign of any evolutionary lineage. The only suggestion from Margulis and her co-author is the gnetophytes. But since ‘Gnetophytes are believed not to have given rise to any other plant lineage’15 they have to imagine what an ancestor of flowering plants might have looked like. In a blind leap of (evolutionary) faith, they surmise that the incredibly intricate flower structures we see today, complete with ovary (female) and pollen (male), exist because evolution has modified leaves into ‘a shoot specialized for reproduction.’16 Yet there is not even a fragment of fossil evidence for this.
Well, there we have it. The plant fossil record is now more clearly defined than ever before, and it testifies more clearly than ever before that not one of the phyla is either the ancestor or the descendant of any other!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i1/plants.asp
I don`t understand why Christians can`t accept evolution as a part of Gods plan. What Christians seems to be arguing is that Adam and Eve suddenly came out of nowhere and that is that. Evolution literally means "growth", that`s all it means, and if they haven`t noticed lately, everything grows in this world, everything grows in this universe. Until I see a life form pop into existence out of nowhere, evolution for me is not a theory but a fact. When a child is conceived in the womb you can see it for yourself. That child is forming on top of the result of billions of years of evolution. From one cell to 2 cells, to a zygote to an amphibian with a tail to a human...All these stages existed as life forms in the past. Evolution has built on those stages to form humans otherwise a fully formed human child would just immediately appear in a mothers womb. That`s not the case at all though. Christians who believe this stuff are no different from muslims who take the Quarran literally as well. They all believe these books to be "Gods word" yet to date I ahven`t seen one article or book written by God himelf. It`s all written by humans who have claimed to have "God speak through them" and we all know when that happens, humans are right 1000% of the time. Give me a freggin` break. I`m so sick of religion and all of it`s bull. Every damn problem today is the direct result of religion, it truly is, and it all comes down to is the fear of death. That`s all religion is. When you die you are no worse off then before you were born. In fact you are better off when you die because you have lived, so accept the trophy, shut up and get some balls. All these religious pricks come off as self centered cowards to me, meanwhile we have men and women giving their lives in Iraq so someone they don`t know can live in basic human freedom because of the problems of religion. Consider those people. Everyone has their own personal religion, the problems start when you get a bunch of azzholes trying to push their own on other people. "This is what happens when you die! No no no! this is what happens when you die!" Who the f88k cares! Get outta my face jackass.
Miller's God may be "Darwins God" but that god certainly isn't the God of Abraham. Based on my reading, Miller's God is strictly deistic with a liberal dash of Buddhism.
Do to the extreme bias against Bible Believing Christians in the science field, to have a Creationist peer reviewed is a miracle, and it recently almost cost on Smithsonian employee his job even though his paper had nothing to do with his job.
KJ is not as clear as the NIV version on this. In the NIV version it's clear that in Gen 2 God is bringing the animals that he HAD made before Adam. That's where I made my error. So the animals were formed first.
God Shows Job's Ignorance
(A) 1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said:
2"Who is this who darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
3Now prepare yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer Me.
4"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8"Or who shut in the sea with doors,
When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
9When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
10When I fixed My limit for it,
And set bars and doors;
11When I said,
"This far you may come, but no farther,
And here your proud waves must stop!'
12"Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
And caused the dawn to know its place,
13That it might take hold of the ends of the earth,
And the wicked be shaken out of it?
14It takes on form like clay under a seal,
And stands out like a garment.
15From the wicked their light is withheld,
And the upraised arm is broken.
16"Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?
17Have the gates of death been revealed to you?
Or have you seen the doors of the shadow of death?
18Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth?
Tell Me, if you know all this.
19"Where is the way to the dwelling of light?
And darkness, where is its place,
20That you may take it to its territory,
That you may know the paths to its home?
21Do you know it, because you were born then,
Or because the number of your days is great?
22"Have you entered the treasury of snow,
Or have you seen the treasury of hail,
23Which I have reserved for the time of trouble,
For the day of battle and war?
24By what way is light diffused,
Or the east wind scattered over the earth?
25"Who has divided a channel for the overflowing water,
Or a path for the thunderbolt,
26To cause it to rain on a land where there is no one,
A wilderness in which there is no man;
27To satisfy the desolate waste,
And cause to spring forth the growth of tender grass?
28Has the rain a father?
Or who has begotten the drops of dew?
29From whose womb comes the ice?
And the frost of heaven, who gives it birth?
30The waters harden like stone,
And the surface of the deep is frozen.
31"Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades,
Or loose the belt of Orion?
32Can you bring out Mazzaroth[a] in its season?
Or can you guide the Great Bear with its cubs?
33Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?
Can you set their dominion over the earth?
34"Can you lift up your voice to the clouds,
That an abundance of water may cover you?
35Can you send out lightnings, that they may go,
And say to you, "Here we are!'?
36Who has put wisdom in the mind?[b]
Or who has given understanding to the heart?
37Who can number the clouds by wisdom?
Or who can pour out the bottles of heaven,
38When the dust hardens in clumps,
And the clods cling together?
39"Can you hunt the prey for the lion,
Or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
40When they crouch in their dens,
Or lurk in their lairs to lie in wait?
41Who provides food for the raven,
When its young ones cry to God,
And wander about for lack of food?
Evolution and the Bible cannot be reconciled unless you deny the basic truths of one to believe the other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.