Posted on 08/01/2008 10:34:24 AM PDT by OneVike
Few people might be aware of this: There are passages in the Bible that coincide with scientific principles that weren't discovered by scientists until hundreds of years after the Bible had been written. Here are some examples:
(Excerpt) Read more at godlessgeeks.com ...
This is the most scientific book I've ever read and changed my perception.
Few people might be aware of this: There are passages in the Bible that coincide with scientific principles that weren't discovered by scientists until hundreds of years after the Bible had been written. Here are some examples:
Source: http://www.bible.ca/b-science-evidences.htm
1. The Bible said the earth is round and is suspended in space:
The earth is round!
You may be surprised to learn that the Bible revealed that the earth is round. Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22, Amos 9:6. Today, we chuckle at the people of the fifteenth century who feared sailing because they thought they would fall over the edge of the flat earth. Yet the Bible revealed the truth in 1000 B.C. 2500 years before man discovered it for himself!
In various verses, the Bible says the earth is round and hangs in space. It took a long time for science to catch up and reach the same conclusions. Copernicus made the discovery in 1475. But the Bible always knew. Here are two related Bible verses that were written more than 2500 years ago, and more than 1000 years before Copernicus:
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV). (By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle.")
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).
"Paths of the sea" Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He was bed-ridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalms 8:8. Upon his recovery, Maury took God at his word and went looking for these paths. We are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents.
His book on oceanography is still considered a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities. Maury used the Bible as a
2. The Bible described the Hydrologic Cycle:
Revealed in the Bible: Job 36:27-28 The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. Yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C.! The Bible's description is in perfect harmony with modern science. Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6. Vitruvius was 1600 years too late!
In various passages, the Bible describes a hydrologic cycle, the process by which clouds are formed, rain is produced and ground water is replenished. Science made the same discovery in the 1600s, long after the Bible passages were written. Here are the related Bible verses:
"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8, NIV).
"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28, NIV).
"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
3. The Bible stated that the stars cannot be counted: For centuries, scientists and astronomers thought they could count the precise number of stars in the universe. Brahe, for example, said there were 777. Kepler claimed the total was 1,005. Hipparchus said there were 1,022 stars. Ptolemy raised the number to 1,056. Eventually, scientists, including the great Galileo, concluded that the stars could not be numbered, just as the Bible had always claimed:
"I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore" (Jeremiah 33:22, NIV).
He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." (Genesis 15:5, NIV).
4. The Bible stated the existence of valleys and springs in the seas: Only until the past few hundred years did people have the technology to discover that there are deep valleys and fresh water springs in the oceans. But the Bible always knew:
"The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the Lord. . . " (2 Samuel 22:16, NIV).
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. " (Genesis 7:11, NIV).
5. The Bible stated that kind words and laughter are good for one's health: In recent years, American newspapers have published various reports that laughter releases chemicals within a person's body that can contribute to one's health. And, that depression and stress can weaken the immune system and contribute to various health problems. But, the Bible knew of the health virtues of laughter roughly 3000 years ago when the Bible's book of Proverbs was recorded:
"Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones." (Proverbs 16:24, NIV).
"A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones." (Proverbs 17:22, NIV).
6. The Bible stated that stars differ from one another centuries before scientists reached the same conclusion: Today we know that the stars in the skies are very different from one another, that they are made up of differing concentrations of different elements, and that they vary in their sizes, their ages and in their proximity to the earth. But the ancient people had no way to prove this. Even so, Paul, who received many insights from Jesus, wrote a passage about 2000 years ago in the Bible's book of 1 Corinthians that said that the stars in the heavens did indeed differ from one another:
"The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor." (1 Corinthians 15:41). God used "anesthesia" before it was even discovered:
gen. 2:21, "so the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep ; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs..."
God commanded the hebrews to cleanse themselves with fresh water even before the discovery of bacteria(God is in the tomorrow already!)
lev. 15:13, "...he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean."
I am a nurse, and if we have patients with contagious disease or condition we isolate them. but God commanded this a long time ago:
lev. 13:46, "as long as he has the infection, he remains unclean. he must live alone . he must live outside the camp.
why do health officials quarantine infectious individuals? so they won't spread infection. God knew it even before they did!
The bible describes the precision of movement in the universe:
jer. 31:35, "thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for a light by day, the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, who disturbs the sea and its waves roar..."
The bible describes the circulation of atmosphere:
ecc. 1:6, "the wind goes toward the south and turns around to the north, the wind whirls about continually and comes again on its circuit."
The bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics:
job 28:25, "to establish the weight for a wind and apportion the waters by measure."
lev.17:11 describes the value of blood, "for the life of the flesh is in the blood..."
The bible describes something like a television, probably a satellite TV that will allow everyone to see a single event:
rev. 11:19, "...then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues and nations will see their dead bodies for three and one half days..."
6 DAY CREATION...
GOD WAS TAKING HIS TIME If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the change takes 40 million years, we call it evolution. We often hear that science has proved evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. You see, people often confuse scientific fact with scientific theory. Current scientific theory does conflict with creation. But the facts of science do not! There are many scientists who fully accept Biblical creation. Surprised?
The theory of evolution says that over millions of years simple life forms (one celled creatures) slowly evolved into complex life forms (fish), and that one kind of animal evolved into another kind (ape to man). Genesis, on the other hand, says that all life forms were created in six, 24 hour days. Genesis chapter one states 10 times that life forms can only reproduce after their own kind (ape to ape, man to man).
All the observable facts of science strongly support the Bible's claim that it is impossible for one kind to reproduce a different kind. The truth is, there is absolutely no tangible evidence to support evolution from any area of science, just theory and a wild imagination!
But if the Bible is wrong and man actually did evolve in small graduations over a long period of time, we should find ample fossil evidence of links in intermediate stages of transition. For decades, evolutionists have searched for fossils of these links to prove biblical creation wrong. Although millions of fossils have been unearthed, not even one missing link has ever been found. Has it ever occurred to you that this is the reason why scientists refer to them as missing links?
Even Charles Darwin realized the difficulty missing links gave his theory. Darwin wrote in his book, Origin Of The Species, "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" The reason we have never found any missing links is quite simple. Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong!
Experts tricked for 40 years! In 1912, Arthur Woodward announced to the world that he had found the missing link between ape and man. Piltdown Man, as he called it, consisted of a jaw bone and a piece of skull which he estimated to be over 500,000 years old! However, in 1953, when the new fluoride dating process was applied to the bones, scientists were shocked to learn that the jaw bone was less than 50 years old.
Only then did they notice that the bones and teeth had been treated with salts and filed to make them appear old and primitive. In other words, Piltdown Man was a complete fraud. Take note Bible student! The world's foremost scientific experts had been fooled for over 40 years! (Read 1 Corinthians 3:18-20.) For almost a half century, evolutionists pushed Piltdown Man in the faces of Bible believers as scientific proof we evolved from apes! Some proof!
In spite of over 100 years of intensive searching, the only place you will find a missing link today is in the colourful imagination of an evolutionist. Museums certainly don't have any! "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen 1:1) Have you ever considered that when God created the universe in six short 24 hour days, He may have been taking His time?
Although the Bible is not primarily a book of science, it does contain numerous scientific facts. We laugh at the scientific knowledge of just a hundred years ago. If man alone were the author of the Bible, we would expect to find many such humorous errors contained in it. However, if we examine the scientific data of the Bible and find it to be accurate to present-day knowledge, then we have powerful evidence for divine authorship.
The scientific facts we are about to examine are not only accurate, but were revealed thousands of years before man discovered them for himself. The Bible does not contain any errors typical of the time in which it was written. Would we expect anything less from a book written by God?
The Bible is a reliable book of genuine divine prophecy. You can trust it! The evidence presented here is just a tiny portion of the proofs available to establish the divine origin of the Bible. Yet, they are more than sufficient to prove the inspiration of the Bible. There will always be men who scoff at the Bible. You, however, can be confident when you read your Bible that God is the author, for it is written:
"We constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
The Bible is the world's all-time best selling book. About 2.5 billion copies have been printed which are available in over 700 languages. Although the Bible has enjoyed such vast distribution and attention, it is read relatively little. Perhaps part of the reason the Bible is so neglected is the many doubts people have about this unique book. If the Bible came from the mouth of God, then the scriptures are believable when they speak of Jesus Christ and accurate when they touch the realm of science.
All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)
The word "inspired" (theopneustos) in the original Greek language literally means "God-breathed". When the Bible claims to be inspired, we understand therefore, that it came from the mouth of God. It is God-breathed, inspired.
But a skeptic will say, "Everyone knows the Bible was written by men! The book of 1 Corinthians, for example, was written by a man named Paul. After all, the very first verse bears his name as the "author." In reply to this we answer: "Yes, 1 Corinthians was written by Paul. Notice however, what Paul said in chapter 14, verse 37: "the things I write to you are the Lord's commandment."
Paul knew the source of his writings and understood that he was like a pen in the hand of Almighty God. We must not view the Bible as the word of Paul, Peter, or Jeremiah, but rather, as the message God revealed through these men just as it is written in Jeremiah 1:9,
Then the Lord stretched out his hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me, 'behold, I have put my words in your mouth'.
The Bible writers were not like news reporters giving their personal interpretation of events they eye-witnessed, but were divinely guided as 2 Peter 1:20-21 says,
Above all, you must understand that no prophesy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
God and man worked together in writing the scriptures. However, in this work, God is the author who dictated the message, and man is the writing instrument. Men were guided or inspired to write the exact message God wanted recorded in the Bible. Now that we have a fundamental understanding of inspiration and the origin of the Bible, let us look at some evidence of inspiration.
"We constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
mega-dittoes
This is satire, right?
Just another noter for those who care;
In the book of Job a Dinosaur is presciently described by God in His discussion with Job in Job 40:15-24;
15)”Look now at the behemoth,[1] which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16) See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17) He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18) His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
19) He is the first of the ways of God;
Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
20) Surely the mountains yield food for him,
And all the beasts of the field play there.
21) He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.
22) The lotus trees cover him with their shade;
The willows by the brook surround him.
23) Indeed the river may rage,
Yet he is not disturbed;
He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,
24) Though he takes it in his eyes,
Or one pierces his nose with a snare.
You must admit that the entire description given in these verses fit certain types of dinosaurs very well. But we’re going to zero in on one particular verse. It’s in verse 17 it says, “He moveth his tail like a cedar:”.
This verse alone should be enough to put the whole issue to rest as to whether or not God is describing a dinosaur to Job in this verse. Keep in mind, God is talking to Job about a living animal, that Job is familiar with. What land creatures do we know of today that have tails the size of a cedar tree?
How big is a cedar tree you might ask, well lets see what an expert from the University of Arizona department of tree ring studies, A Mr. Henri D. Grissino-Mayer has to say;
He was asked this by a curious investigator and the Professor was kind enough to send his reply in a letter. Here is his answer;
Well this certainly is one of the more original questions I’ve ever answered. In the Middle East, there are several species of trees that would qualify for “cedar” status. Basically, any juniper-like tree can be called a cedar. However, the tree most likely referred to is the famous well-known species called “Cedrus libani”, or “cedar-of-Lebanon,” a beautiful and stately tree that grows in the Middle East. These trees can be quite large! I worked on cross-sections from one tree that were about 1.5 meters in diameter. The tree can attain heights greater than 40 meters with a diameter greater than 3 meters! The tree is a favorite nursery tree and is now planted all over the world, even many here in Tucson, Arizona. Hope this helps.
Henri
Henri D. Grissino-Mayer
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA
For those who think Christians are Flat Earth people, I must say that the true Flat Earthers are those who refuse to look at all the evidence. Like those of the “Global Warming” crowd.
Well, the spooky thing about the Bible is the fact that it describes what hell is in great detail... The Bible teaches that space was “stretch ed out like a tent”, but at the destruction of the universe, the Bible says it will “roll up like a scroll”, ie. collapse.
Whenever Satan is said to be judged in the Bible, he is said to be “crushed”. Apparently, when God judges humanity, all that side with Him will be allowed to enter the new universe, but those that refuse His offer of forgiveness are left on the old earth and it will collapse in on them.
Hell is described as the “storm of darkness” by Peter, a fine picture of a rotationg black hole. The angels who fell are confined to “pits of darkness”, also called the “abyss”. Hell is a place of darkness, but incredible heat (because photons are ripped apart by the extreme gravity), and those there are “bound in gloomy darkness by chains”. In the book of Job we read about the “chains” that bind the constellations, so the chains spoken of in hell are gravitational ones.
There is a valley between heaven and hell which no one may cross, that would be the event horizon. Pretty spooky stuff.
Not!
It is Fact!
Do you have the guts to check out my facts? Or will you just dismiss it with out investigation, like the Global Warming crowd.
Ping to read later
Rather than refute these claims again, here is a link to Index to Creationist Claims where these, and hundreds of other claims are refuted.
But if anyone wants to discuss the specifics of fossil man, and the claims in this article, fossil man was one of my fields in graduate school and I would be happy to discuss the details.
In various verses, the Bible says the earth is round and hangs in space. It took a long time for science to catch up and reach the same conclusions. Copernicus made the discovery in 1475...
Nonsense. The ancient Greeks knew the world was round during the Classical period.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_earth
.
I thought that all of you Darwin Central folks abandoned Free Republic.
How does it explain Noah being able to track down tens of thousands of land-dwelling species for his ark, let alone actually fitting them on the ark, and doing this all without the animals killing & eating each other and/or Noah?
“”Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”
^ A question I have wondered about myself.
“Do you have the guts to check out my facts? Or will you just dismiss it with out investigation, like the Global Warming crowd.”
I certainly do have the guts to investigate your claim. Let us take your first claim and investigate it.
“1. The Bible said the earth is round and is suspended in space:
The earth is round!
You may be surprised to learn that the Bible revealed that the earth is round. Job 26:10,”
The earth is a sphere, but I quibble. Let us see what your primary piece of evidence says : )
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness.
Is that describing a globe hanging in space?
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
He marks the horizon on the surface of the water at the boundary where light meets dark.
Is that describing a globe hanging in space?
King James Bible
He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
Is that describing a globe hanging in space?
American King James Version
He has compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
Is that describing a globe hanging in space?
American Standard Version
He hath described a boundary upon the face of the waters, Unto the confines of light and darkness.
Is that describing a globe hanging in space?
Bible in Basic English
By him a circle is marked out on the face of the waters, to the limits of the light and the dark.
Is that describing a globe hanging in space?
Douay-Rheims Bible
He hath set bounds about the waters, till light and darkness come to an end.
Is that describing a globe hanging in space?
Darby Bible Translation
He hath traced a fixed circle over the waters, unto the confines of light and darkness.
Is that describing a globe hanging in space?
English Revised Version
He hath described a boundary upon the face of the waters, unto the confines of light and darkness.
Is that describing a globe hanging in space?
Webster’s Bible Translation
He hath encompassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
Is that describing a globe hanging in space?
World English Bible
He has described a boundary on the surface of the waters, and to the confines of light and darkness.
Is that describing a globe hanging in space?
Young’s Literal Translation
A limit He hath placed on the waters, Unto the boundary of light with darkness.
Is that describing a globe hanging in space?
I have grabbed as many translations of Job 26:10 as I could. Obviously it seems to be describing a circle drawn out of the water. This is your biblical evidence that the Bible accurately portrays reality? Beating Science to the punch?
I am sorry but this is pathetic. You would be better off if you claimed that the Bible was best science the ancient world was capable of. I think you could make that case except that the Greeks and Chinese might disagree.
I'm the rear guard. I'm fighting a holding action. ;-)
And I claim that every one of your and the arguments by your socalled flat earthers has been refuted as bogus. Need I give the sites?
Forgive me for my exuberance but here are just a couple of sites that have had your secular scientists for lunch.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.carm.org/evarchive.htm
How about a list of reputable scientists who think your side is dead wrong?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
How about a Muslim site? They have the wrong God, but they have good scientific evidence that you cannot refute without twisting words and obfuscating the argument
http://www.harunyahya.com/index.php
Again, No! your side has not won arguments, they have lost every debate they have been in and will continue to loose debates.
Job, who lived after the flood said that their contemporary life spans were a “shadow” of their ancestors. Evolution teaches us that we started from slime and are evolving toward being beings of light. The exact opposite is true. We are falling apart faster than a Chinese motorcycle.
As for the animals, God could have easily guided them to the ark, with no help from Noah. Once onboard, many could have been very small as even the largest species have tiny, humble beginnings as young. Many creatures may have hibernated on the journey and required very little if any care. Again, the point being, it was up to God, and not Noah. Noah only trusted God.
days
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If Hebrew did not have a word for sphere in those days, I bet it didn’t have a word for eon or millions of years either.
The word “days” is probably the best word they could find for a period of time that took much longer. Or “day” could refer to one of God’s days for which we have no reference even today.
Next time try the Hebrew translation, or the Greek Translation. And look up what the original writers had to say elsewhere. You will find many writings of ancient scholars who know what the word said. You can take all the translations you want, but until you understand the truth you will try to refute. You are wrong in your interpretations of these scriptures. Read them again, and this time read, do not cut and paste something someone else wrote!
“5. The Bible stated that kind words and laughter are good for one’s health: In recent years, American newspapers have published various reports that laughter releases chemicals within a person’s body that can contribute to one’s health. And, that depression and stress can weaken the immune system and contribute to various health problems. But, the Bible knew of the health virtues of laughter roughly 3000 years ago when the Bible’s book of Proverbs was recorded:
“Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones.” (Proverbs 16:24, NIV).
“A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.” (Proverbs 17:22, NIV).”
Methinks people realized a very, very, very long time ago that laughter and cheerfulness made people feel better than stress and sadness. By golly, I’ll bet people were well aware of it before the Bible was written.
The universe, originally stretched out from a single point, is in actuality a hypersphere of 10 dimensions. The Bible talks about space being stretched out like a tent or a curtain, and being put away like a garment when it gets old (and is full of holes). All fabric terms we still use today to describe space.
If you want to really freak out, what is the Biblical view of space? Space is actually water, which has been “raised” into 10 dimensions. You'll notice that in the Tabernacle, the “curtain” that separated God from man was a single curtain, woven together from 10 curtains (dimensions). In Genesis, God talks about how he “raised the waters above the waters”, and the “waters above and below”. This material, the firmamentum, is then, hyperwater, a hyper-material. The properties of this material given in the Bible, it can be stretched, torn, bent what have you, match the properties we know that belong to space.
From our point of view, or reference frame, space is an ether, from God's point of view (outside our 4 dimensions), space is a solid. He walks upon it. Walks upon the solid hypersphere of 10 dimensional space. In the Bible God talks about walking upon the waters as if soild. Jesus of course symbolized this by walking on sea water. Moses parted the red sea, and the waters became like a wall, and were made firm.
This hyper-water, this firmamentum material may be what Dr. Higgs is trying to discover. It comes from a word meaning to make firm. And the Greek term, stereoma, means “skeleton”. The firmament, is the backbone of the universe, the Higgs field, call it what you will, and the earth hangs in this material, as if in nothing.
Perhaps the Bible had a few things correct about science however, it does still not prove creationism.
Just as finding scientific inaccuracies in the Bible does not prove Evolution.
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays
Late Silurian — first little simple shark-like denticles.
Early Devonian — first recognizable shark teeth, clearly derived from scales.
GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can’t get much detailed information. So, we don’t know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.
Cladoselache (late Devonian) — Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) — Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins.
Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) — Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) — from more advanced sharks.
Paleospinax (early Jurassic) — More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.
Spathobatis (late Jurassic) — First proto-ray.
Protospinax (late Jurassic) — A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous.
A separate lineage leads from the ctenacanthids through Echinochimaera (late Mississippian) and Similihari (late Pennsylvanian) to the modern ratfish.
Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish
Upper Silurian — first little scales found.
GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can’t be identified.
Acanthodians(?) (Silurian) — A puzzling group of spiny fish with similarities to early bony fish.
Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis, Mimia; early Devonian) — Primitive bony ray-finned fishes that gave rise to the vast majority of living fish. Heavy acanthodian-type scales, acanthodian-like skull, and big notochord.
Canobius, Aeduella (Carboniferous) — Later paleoniscoids with smaller, more advanced jaws.
Parasemionotus (early Triassic) — “Holostean” fish with modified cheeks but still many primitive features. Almost exactly intermediate between the late paleoniscoids & first teleosts. Note: most of these fish lived in seasonal rivers and had lungs. Repeat: lungs first evolved in fish.
Oreochima & similar pholidophorids (late Triassic) — The most primitive teleosts, with lighter scales (almost cycloid), partially ossified vertebrae, more advanced cheeks & jaws.
Leptolepis & similar leptolepids (Jurassic) — More advanced with fully ossified vertebrae & cycloid scales. The Jurassic leptolepids radiated into the modern teleosts (the massive, successful group of fishes that are almost totally dominant today). Lung transformed into swim bladder.
Eels & sardines date from the late Jurassic, salmonids from the Paleocene & Eocene, carp from the Cretaceous, and the great group of spiny teleosts from the Eocene. The first members of many of these families are known and are in the leptolepid family (note the inherent classification problem!).
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians
Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn’t have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn’t have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn’t have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet (see below), support this idea of an “aquatic feet” stage. Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already.
Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) — These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish.
Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) — One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the “elbow”, and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) — Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible “toes”, just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike.
Panderichthys, Elpistostege (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) — These “panderichthyids” are very tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike Eusthenopteron, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins.
Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys — Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: “It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod ‘L-shape’...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable.”
GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody’s found one yet.
Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (late Devonian) — A little later, the fin-to-foot transition was almost complete, and we have a set of early tetrapod fossils that clearly did have feet. The most complete are Ichthyostega, Acanthostega gunnari, and the newly described Hynerpeton bassetti (Daeschler et al., 1994). (There are also other genera known from more fragmentary fossils.) Hynerpeton is the earliest of these three genera (365 Ma), but is more advanced in some ways; the other two genera retained more fish- like characters longer than the Hynerpeton lineage did.
Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (late Dev./early Miss.) — These larger amphibians still have some icthyostegid fish features, such as skull bone patterns, labyrinthine tooth dentine, presence & pattern of large palatal tusks, the fish skull hinge, pieces of gill structure between cheek & shoulder, and the vertebral structure. But they have lost several other fish features: the fin rays in the tail are gone, the vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined, etc.
More info on those first known Late Devonian amphibians: Acanthostega gunnari was very fish-like, and recently Coates & Clack (1991) found that it still had internal gills! They said: “Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal gills and an open opercular chamber for use in aquatic respiration, implying that the earliest tetrapods were not fully terrestrial....Retention of fish-like internal gills by a Devonian tetrapod blurs the traditional distinction between tetrapods and fishes...this adds further support to the suggestion that unique tetrapod characters such as limbs with digits evolved first for use in water rather than for walking on land.” Acanthostega also had a remarkably fish-like shoulder and forelimb. Ichthyostega was also very fishlike, retaining a fish-like finned tail, permanent lateral line system, and notochord. Neither of these two animals could have survived long on land.
Coates & Clack (1990) also recently found the first really well- preserved feet, from Acanthostega (front foot found) and Ichthyostega (hind foot found). (Hynerpeton’s feet are unknown.) The feet were much more fin-like than anyone expected. It had been assumed that they had five toes on each foot, as do all modern tetrapods. This was a puzzle since the fins of lobe-finned fishes don’t seem to be built on a five-toed plan. It turns out that Acanthostega’s front foot had eight toes, and Ichthyostega’s hind foot had seven toes, giving both feet the look of a short, stout flipper with many “toe rays” similar to fin rays. All you have to do to a lobe- fin to make it into a many-toed foot like this is curl it, wrapping the fin rays forward around the end of the limb. In fact, this is exactly how feet develop in larval amphibians, from a curled limb bud. (Also see Gould’s essay on this subject, “Eight Little Piggies”.) Said the discoverers (Coates & Clack, 1990): “The morphology of the limbs of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega suggest an aquatic mode of life, compatible with a recent assessment of the fish-tetrapod transition. The dorsoventrally compressed lower leg bones of Ichthyostega strongly resemble those of a cetacean [whale] pectoral flipper. A peculiar, poorly ossified mass lies anteriorly adjacent to the digits, and appears to be reinforcement for the leading edge of this paddle-like limb.” Coates & Clack also found that Acanthostega’s front foot couldn’t bend forward at the elbow, and thus couldn’t be brought into a weight-bearing position. In other words this “foot” still functioned as a horizontal fin. Ichthyostega’s hind foot may have functioned this way too, though its front feet could take weight. Functionally, these two animals were not fully amphibian; they lived in an in-between fish/amphibian niche, with their feet still partly functioning as fins. Though they are probably not ancestral to later tetrapods, Acanthostega & Ichthyostega certainly show that the transition from fish to amphibian is feasible!
Hynerpeton, in contrast, probably did not have internal gills and already had a well-developed shoulder girdle; it could elevate and retract its forelimb strongly, and it had strong muscles that attached the shoulder to the rest of the body (Daeschler et al., 1994). Hynerpeton’s discoverers think that since it had the strongest limbs earliest on, it may be the actual ancestor of all subsequent terrestrial tetrapods, while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega may have been a side branch that stayed happily in a mostly-aquatic niche.
In summary, the very first amphibians (presently known only from fragments) were probably almost totally aquatic, had both lungs and internal gills throughout life, and scudded around underwater with flipper-like, many-toed feet that didn’t carry much weight. Different lineages of amphibians began to bend either the hind feet or front feet forward so that the feet carried weight. One line (Hynerpeton) bore weight on all four feet, developed strong limb girdles and muscles, and quickly became more terrestrial.
Transitions among amphibians
Temnospondyls, e.g Pholidogaster (Mississippian, about 330 Ma) — A group of large labrinthodont amphibians, transitional between the early amphibians (the ichthyostegids, described above) and later amphibians such as rhachitomes and anthracosaurs. Probably also gave rise to modern amphibians (the Lissamphibia) via this chain of six temnospondyl genera , showing progressive modification of the palate, dentition, ear, and pectoral girdle, with steady reduction in body size (Milner, in Benton 1988). Notice, though, that the times are out of order, though they are all from the Pennsylvanian and early Permian. Either some of the “Permian” genera arose earlier, in the Pennsylvanian (quite likely), and/or some of these genera are “cousins”, not direct ancestors (also quite likely).
Dendrerpeton acadianum (early Penn.) — 4-toed hand, ribs straight, etc.
Archegosaurus decheni (early Permian) — Intertemporals lost, etc.
Eryops megacephalus (late Penn.) — Occipital condyle splitting in 2, etc.
Trematops spp. (late Permian) — Eardrum like modern amphibians, etc.
Amphibamus lyelli (mid-Penn.) — Double occipital condyles, ribs very small, etc.
Doleserpeton annectens or perhaps Schoenfelderpeton (both early Permian) — First pedicellate teeth! (a classic trait of modern amphibians) etc.
From there we jump to the Mesozoic:
Triadobatrachus (early Triassic) — a proto-frog, with a longer trunk and much less specialized hipbone, and a tail still present (but very short).
Vieraella (early Jurassic) — first known true frog.
Karaurus (early Jurassic) — first known salamander.
Finally, here’s a recently found fossil:
Unnamed proto-anthracosaur — described by Bolt et al., 1988. This animal combines primitive features of palaeostegalians (e.g. temnospondyl-like vertebrae) with new anthracosaur-like features. Anthracosaurs were the group of large amphibians that are thought to have led, eventually, to the reptiles. Found in a new Lower Carboniferous site in Iowa, from about 320 Ma.
OK then, What does the Hebrew or Greek translation of Job say?
The fact that we're bigger, taller, and have longer life spans than 2,000 years ago must be completely ignored if we're to believe your statement.
Go back and read what Lactantius believed;
The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245-325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life.
He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived).
Or Maybe what Cosmas Indicopleustes and Church Fathers Believed
Next was sixth century Eastern Greek Christian, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who claimed the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens (consisting of a rectangular vaulted arch). His work also was soundly rejected by the Church Fathers, but liberal historians have usually claimed his view as typical of that of the Church Fathers.
US Library of Congress head, Daniel Boorstin (quoted above), like historians before him, simply followed the pattern of others without checking the facts. In fact, most of the Church Fathers did not address the issue of the shape of the Earth, and those who did regarded it as “round” or spherical.
Copyrighted. Courtesy of Answers in Genesis.
How about Washington Irving Who admitted he indulged in imagination
In 1828, American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) published a book entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was a mixture of fact and fiction, with Irving himself admitting he was “apt to indulge in the imagination.”
Its theme was the victory of a lone believer in a spherical Earth over a united front of Bible-quoting, superstitious ignoramuses, convinced the Earth was flat. In fact, the well-known argument at the Council of Salamanca was about the dubious distance between Europe and Japan which Columbus presented—it had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.
Then in 1834, the anti-Christian Letronne falsely claimed that most of the Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, held to a flat Earth. His work has been repeatedly cited as “reputable” ever since.
In the late nineteenth century, the writings of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White were responsible for promoting the myth that the church taught a flat Earth. Both had Christian backgrounds, but rejected these early in life.
Englishman Draper convinced himself that with the downfall of the Roman Empire the ‘affairs of men fell into the hands of ignorant and infuriated ecclesiastics, parasites, eunuchs and slaves’ these were the ‘Dark Ages’. Draper’s work, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), was directed particularly against the Roman Church, and was a best seller.
Meanwhile White (who founded Cornell University as the first explicitly secular university in the United States), published the two-volume scholarly work History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, in 1896.
Both men incorrectly portrayed a continuing battle through the Christian era between the defenders of ignorance and the enlightened rationalists. In fact, not only did the church not promote the flat Earth, it is clear from such passages as Isaiah 40:22 that the Bible implies it is spherical. (Non-literal figures of speech such as the “four corners of the Earth” are still used today.)
When you start filling in the gaps by saying "God did this, God did that" you're outside the realm of science, which is what this thread is about.
Once onboard, many could have been very small as even the largest species have tiny, humble beginnings as young.
Like elephants? Horses? Bears? Etc?
Many creatures may have hibernated on the journey and required very little if any care.
Most animals don't hibernate. Why would they start on the ark? How were they fed? Where was all that food kept? What was done with their waste?
Technology has given us a lifespan boost, that is certain, but I'm not talking about people living 2,000 years ago, but Adam and Eve. Their children had successively smaller lifespans.
All that is speculation by scientists that have an end agenda. and ALL HAVE BEEN REFUTED BY OTHER ARCHEOLOGIST’S. Not one bit of information you just gave is proven fact. Even the scientists and geologists and archaeologists admit they are supposed conclusions. And they go on to admit that theirs is a theory that these fossils relate together in the way you pointed out. And you KNOW I AM RIGHT!
Is there a conscious effort afoot to turn FreeRepublic into the trailer park of conservative internet sites?
The science of God is so terribly advanced, it seems like magic to us. When you stare into a mirror, you're looking at one of the most advanced pieces of technology in the known universe. It's mind-boggling.
But I will agree with you, that science can only go so far, and religion can only go so far, and eventually both have to rely on faith. God can not be scientifically proven. But then again, the circumstances that brought along the universe can't be repeated either, and so there we are.
How about I freak you out : ) I am familiar with your n-sphere math. The reality is that matter is made of waves of nothing. Einsteins and QED's fields are nothing : ) and everything comes from that.
The fossil record is full of transitional forms just as Darwin predicted. Your ignorance is deep.
Ditto’s
I wholeheartedly agree
The Bible is indeed strange, because God jumps from past, to present to future and everywhere in between, because time means nothing to Him.
I don’t think you can fairly mix up your arguments that way.
Yes, none of us are living the lifespan of those named in early Genesis.
Of course, early Genesis was not written by anyone who was there, if that matters in the least.
But even assuming Genesis is 100% factual, you can’t use it as evidence that evolution is not producing superior offspring overall. The difference is you’re starting with a premise and looking for evidence, and evolution starts with no premise except that there is no premise and builds a theory based on the evidence.
There is no scientific evidence of Methusaleh’s reported age. So you can’t argue science from that premise.
Look up Aleph Null (Jewish Mysticism). It will help your argument more than the mythical 10 dimensional universe. I have a "theory" that one of the reasons why so many Jewish scientists helped usher in the modern physics era, is because they may have been familiar with the concept of Aleph Null.
Great read!
I believe in, among other things, the literally number of years of their lifespans because I trust the Bible. I trust Jesus, in fact, I happen to be very keen on Him. There is nothing “scientific” about that, as it does not come from observation, the backbone of the scientific method.
But neither can a scientist prove beyond all doubt how the universe came into being. As God told Job “we're you there when I laid the foundations of the earth?” He could ask us the same question.
Science is God for all sorts of things, if used properly, but it can only do so much. Science, for example, can never teach us why we were made, and the Bible does that just fine. (It was because God loves us, by the way)
Thanks for the author I will certainly check him out.
Excuse me, Darwin himself stated that he could be disproved if his ideas were not backed up by future studies which they haven’t.
Here is a litany of problems with Darwin and his ideas from the book
“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”
Written by Jonathan Wells
Regnery Publishing (Softcover) 273 pages, 2006
Here are just a few of the topics covered in this book the Darwinists don?t want you to read:
* How, though Darwin is often credited with citing “overwhelming evidence” for his theory of natural selection, all he actually provided was “one or two imaginary illustrations” of how it might work
* Why many of Darwin’s contemporaries regarded the same data he cited as evidence, not of common ancestry, but of common design
* One pro-Darwin science writer who candidly admits that the chain of fossil ancestry is “a completely human invention created after the fact”
* How, despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of experiments, no one has ever observed one species turn into another (”speciation”)
* Why most alleged instances of “observed” speciation are actually analyses of already existing species that show how speciation might occur — but never that it has
* Darwin vs. Darwin: how he conceded that his theory was contradicted by known evidence (or lack thereof), though he hoped later findings would vindicate him - which still hasn’t occurred after 150 years
* How Darwin’s “strongest single class of facts” — the early vertebrate embryos — shows the opposite of what he thought it showed
* The Cambrian Explosion — aka biology’s “Big Bang”: how it contradicts Darwin’s branching “Tree of Life”
* Word games Darwinists play (example: exploiting the diverse meanings of “evolution” to distract critics)
* How science textbooks continue to feature “evidence” for Darwinism that has long since been proven fraudulent
* “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” one Darwinist claims. Then why were most major biological disciplines founded either before Darwin, or by scientists who rejected his theory?
* Why the clinical practice of medicine has no use for Darwinism, despite claims that it is impossible to practice medicine without applying its principles
* Evolutionary biologist: “Perhaps it would be easier, and in the long run more productive, to abandon the attempt to force the data . . . into the mold provided by Darwin”
* Modern microbiologist: “Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another”
* National Academy of Sciences member: “Darwin’s theory ... serves no important role in guiding modern experimental biology. That branch of science simply makes no practical use of Darwin’s theory”
* How Darwin’s theory provided the pseudoscientific foundation for the Nazis’ racial extermination policies
* How Haeckel’s famous faked embryo drawings were widely used to promote abortion in late twentieth-century America by convincing people that human embryos were little more than fish
* How the most common definition of Intelligent Design in the news media is flatly incorrect
* How living cells — which Darwin thought were mere blobs of protoplasm — actually consist of countless molecular machines that have all the hallmarks of design
* How design can be inferred not only in living things but also in various features of the cosmos, such as gravity
* How the Earth itself seems uniquely designed not only for life, but also for scientific observation
* How Darwin changed the definition of “science” itself to mean providing materialistic explanations for everything
* How Darwinism is widely used in public education to discredit traditional Christianity and promote atheism
* How Darwinists have openly declared that they will destroy the careers of professors and students who criticize them or defend intelligent design — and they’re doing it
The human form that God walked with Adam in was most likely a Christophony. That is Christ before he was born in human form. Christ is and always was one third of the Holy Trinity. The same thing happened when Abraham argued God from 50 to 10 people who might be righteous to keep God from destroying Sodom.
I have read a lot of what they write. They start with a preordained conclusion, and proceed to stretch, distort, and misrepresent scientific evidence, as well as fabricate the most amazing nonsense, to validate their a priori conclusions.
That is not real science, nor can that type of "evidence" overturn real evidence.
It has been real, and I enjoyed the debate. I must now leave and take my wife to the store. I’ll check in later.
Eve wasn't talking to a serpent, as the Hebrew word for serpent also means “a shining one”. Although His character is very much like a serpent (his poison is in his mouth). Just as Jesus is called the Lamb. Jesus isn't a lamb, literally, and satan isn't a serpent literally. He came as a shining one, an angel. neither is he a “dragon” as he appears in Revelation, which is simply a serpent on steroids.
Lambert Dolphin! I met him a few times a couple of decades ago when he was a scientist. He sure has gone off the deep end since then!
I happen to love Lambert, he’s a friend. An all-around good guy. The universe certainly has 2 stories, the material and the spiritual. That which can be studied, and that which is invisible. You have to take chances to learn new things. Lambert is always the first to say you shouldn’t be dogmatic about everything.
On what basis is that belief held?
The earliest examples of proto-writing (essentially the etching of symbols which probably represented something, but not actual words in a sentence) only goes back to about 3,100 BC.
I understand well that if you believe Noah's Flood occurred 2,000 BC, these are pre-flood writings, which means we should also find them among the fossil remains of the dinosaurs, although we don't.
The problem with creation and the biblical timeline is that it doesn't correspond to anything we can observe. One account must be accepted on blind faith, and the other is based on observable and testable evidence.
There simply is no evidence that I'm aware of that the Books of Moses were based on earlier writings passed down from Adam. That people believe it anyway, I do not dispute.
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.