Building a Biblical Paleo-Biogeography Model

From the article:

“It’s common to find contradictions between evolution and the field of biogeography, which involves the study of how creatures are distributed across the world over time. According to German paleontologist Günter Bechly, a former curator at the Stuttgart State Museum of Natural History:

It is far from true that biogeography unambiguously supports common ancestry, or that patterns of biogeographic distribution always align well with the pattern of reconstructed phylogenetic branching or the supposed age of origin. Indeed, there are many tenacious problems of biogeography and paleobiogeography that do not square well with the evolutionary paradigm of common descent.2

The lack of support that the fossil record and biogeography demonstrate for evolution was a key reason Bechly eventually abandoned his support for macroevolution and became a strong proponent of intelligent design and special creation.”

Günter Bechly: Deleted from Wikipedia

http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Bechly

Publications

Bechly, G. (1996): Morphologische Untersuchungen am Flügelgeäder der rezenten Libellen und deren Stammgruppenvertreter (Insecta; Pterygota; Odonata) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Phylogenetischen Systematik und des Grundplanes der *Odonata. - Petalura, spec. vol. 2: 402 pp.

Bechly, G. (2004): Evolution and systematics. - pp. 7–16 in: Hutchins, M., Evans, A.V., Garrison, R.W. & Schlager, N. (eds): Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia. 2nd Edition. Volume 3, Insects. 472 pp. - Gale Group, Farmington Hills, MI.

Bechly, G. (2010): Additions to the fossil dragonfly fauna of the Lower Cretaceous Crato Formation of Brazil (Insecta: Odonata). - Palaeodiversity, 3 (Supplement “Contributions to the Willi-Hennig-Symposium on Phylogenetics and Evolution, University of Hohenheim, 29 September – 2 October 2009”): 11-77.

Bechly, G., Brauckmann, C., Zessin, W. & Gröning, E. (2001): New results concerning the morphology of the most ancient dragonflies (Insecta: Odonatoptera) from the Namurian of Hagen-Vorhalle (Germany). - J. zool. Syst. evol. Res., 39(2001): 209-226.

Bechly, G., Haas, F., Schawaller, W., Schmalfuss, H. & Schmid, U. (2001): Ur-Geziefer - Die faszinierende Evolution der Insekten. - Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk. Ser. C, 49: 96 pp.

Bechly, G., Nel, A., Martínez-Delclòs, X., Jarzembowski, E.A., Coram, R., Martill, D., Fleck, G., Escuillié, F., Wisshak, M.M. & Maisch, M. (2001): A revision and phylogenetic study of Mesozoic Aeshnoptera, with description of several new families, genera and species (Insecta: Odonata: Anisoptera). - Neue paläontologische Abhandlungen, 4: 219 pp.

Bechly, G. & Wichard, W. (2008): Damselfly and dragonfly nymphs in Eocene Baltic amber (Insecta: Odonata), with aspects of their palaeobiology. - Palaeodiversity, 1: 37-74.

Fleck, G., Bechly, G., Martínez-Delclòs, X., Jarzembowski, E.A., Coram, R. & Nel, A. (2003): Phylogeny and classification of the Stenophlebioptera (Odonata: Epiproctophora). - Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, n.s. 39(1): 55-93.

Fleck, G., Bechly, G., Martínez-Delclòs, X., Jarzembowski, E. & Nel, A. (2004): A revision of the Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous dragonfly family Tarsophlebiidae, with a discussion on the phylogenetic positions of the Tarsophlebiidae and Sieblosiidae (Insecta, Odonatoptera, Panodonata). - Geodiversitas, 26(1): 33-60.

Huguet, A., Nel, A., Martínez-Delclòs, X., Bechly, G. & Martins-Neto, R. (2002): Preliminary phylogenetic analysis of the Protanisoptera (Insecta: Odonatoptera) [Essai d’analyse phylogénétique des Protanisoptera (Insecta: Odonatoptera)]. - Geobios, 35: 537-560.

Jarzembowski, E.A., Martínez-Delclòs, X., Bechly, G., Nel, A., Coram, R. & Escuillé, F. (1998): The Mesozoic non-calopterygoid Zygoptera: descriptions of new genera and species from the Lower Cretaceous of England and Brazil and their phylogenetic significance (Odonata, Zygoptera, Coenagrionoidea, Hemiphlebioidea, Lestoidea). - Cretaceous Research, 19: 403-444.

Martill, D.M., Bechly, G. & Loveridge, R.F. (eds) (2007): The Crato Fossil Beds of Brazil: Window into an Ancient World. xvi + 625 pp. - Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Nel, A., Bechly, G., Jarzembowski, E. & Martínez-Delclòs, X. (1998): A revision of the fossil petalurid dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata: Anisoptera: Petalurida). - Paleontologia Lombarda, N.s., 10: 68 pp.

Nel, A., Bechly, G., Prokop, J., Béthoux, O. & Fleck, G. (2012): Systematics and evolution of Palaeozoic and Mesozoic damselfly-like Odonatoptera of the “protozygopteran” grade. - Journal of Paleontology, 86(1): 81-104.

Olmi, M. & Bechly, G. (2001): New parasitic wasps from Baltic amber (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Dryinidae). - Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk. Ser. B, 306: 1-58.
Schmid, U. & Bechly, G. (2009) (eds): Evolution - Der Fluss des Lebens. - Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk. Ser. C, 66/67: 197 S. (second revised edition published 2010)

Staniczek, A., Bechly, G. & Godunko, R.J. (2011): Coxoplectoptera, a new fossil order of Palaeoptera (Arthropoda: Insecta), with comments on the phylogeny of the stem group of mayflies (Ephemeroptera). - Insect Systematics & Evolution, 42: 101-138.

I’ll never get into the young earth thing. And frankly, the more the few Christians who believe it push it, the more non-Christians look at Christianity and think, “Hmmm...every now and then I’m tempted to jump in but it means I’d have to believe in pseudo-science like scientologists or something. No thanks.”

I fear you’re right. It’s a non-winning, completely pointless argument to claim a young earth. Does the age of the earth effect my salvation? No. It could all have been created a moment ago, with your “memories” included, and would still have no bearing on your soul.

“Scientists analyzed the fossil and realized it’s related to the turaco, a living bird that’s only found in Africa.
The Paleocene bird fossil is supposedly 55 million years old, but this coincides with a time when, according to evolutionary timelines, North America and Africa were thousands of miles apart—much as they are positioned today.”

Too bad about all those hairy elephants in North America that died out. But, then again, maybe they didn’t really exist since Africa and North America are so far apart.

“I’ll never get into the original sin - virgin birth - sinless Savior - resurrection - life-after-death thing.

And frankly, the more the few Christians who believe it push it, the more non-Christians look at Christianity and think,

“Hmmm...every now and then I’m tempted to jump in but it means I’d have to believe in pseudo-science

like scientologists or something.

No thanks.”

\sarc

“And frankly, the more the few Christians who believe [young earth creationism] push it, the more non-Christians look at Christianity and think, ‘Hmmm...every now and then I’m tempted to jump in but it means I’d have to believe in pseudo-science like scientologists or something. No thanks.’”

Would you say the same thing about Christ’s resurrection?

Creation was a supernatural event.

Christ’s resurrection was a supernatural event.

Whenever anyone becomes a Christian it is also a supernatural event.

People do not and can not become a Christian by responding to clever marketing or a better, more modern sales’ pitch. Christendom is quite full of “Christians” who have picked it or inherited it like a brand label. But that’s not genuine faith or Christianity.

If people are not compelled by the urgency of investigating their obligations to their Creator or out of concern for their accountability to the Supreme Judge when their lives are over, they just are not serious about matters of faith.

If being embarrassed to be associated with controversial things like Christ’s blood sacrifice, or His supernatural resurrection, or His creation of the universe by speaking it into existence is just too much of a burden then maybe they just aren’t ready (and maybe never will be) to escape the coming wrath of God on this wicked, fallen world.

Thank you!!

I’m gonna tell you one thing, kid - Immanuel Velikovsky.

Just so we're clear on this, here is what plate tectonics theory says were locations of Earth's continents over the past 250 million years.
Note during Cretaceous North American was still connected via Europe with Africa:

So there's nothing in plate tectonics which prevents the bird in question from having ancestors all across those continents.

unlearner: "Creation was a supernatural event.
Christ’s resurrection was a supernatural event.
Whenever anyone becomes a Christian it is also a supernatural event."

Exactly, Christianity is not, cannot be, a debate with science over the natural realm.
Rather the Bible tells us of a supernatural realm above & beyond nature, a realm which both created and controls nature, and on occasion overrules nature.
The Bible doesn't tell us exactly how God created nature, only that He did and declared nature, over and over, to be "Good".

So accepting Christianity doesn't mean denying science, only recognizing that God created & controls whatever it is science thinks it has discovered.

I think the main difference is nature can be observed and studied. But you can’t observe and study a risen Christ. I bet if I was able to study Christ first-hand I’d see evidence of what I believed (i.e. Thomas investigating Christ’s hands), even if it could be explained only supernaturally (i.e. only God could raise Christ from the dead).

So even if we can’t explain all of the things that God did to create the Earth and the universe, we shouldn’t go out of our way to explain away all the evidence that points to the Earth and the universe being billions of years old. In fact, the more we investigate them, the more we see how supernatural creation was.

For instance, when the Hubble Telescope was put up in the 1990’s and viewed much farther out than before, the prediction was that when we’d view really far out we’d be looking really far back into the past and see that the universe was expanding much faster then than now. The idea was that the oscillating universe theory (big bang repeated over & over) demands that the universe’s expansion slows, stops expanding, becomes a contraction, all matter goes back to a relatively small point, then repeats the big bang.

But the Hubble Telescope was our first viewing that the universe’s expansion is accelerating — meaning the big bang was a one time event and all of physics has to be right for life to exist (and atoms to retain cohesion for that matter) because there’s no second chance, or third chance, or any other chance for random chance to make it right.

But if you immediately reject such information you miss out on learning a “Yada, yada! My Bible was right yet again and the atheists were wrong yet again!” moment. And nobody will here the old earth Christians make points like these if the few Christians who talk about creation that are loudest are the ones going out of their way to “prove” the speed of light changes a lot, that dinosaurs lived with human beings, etc.

“I think the main difference is nature can be observed and studied. But you can’t observe and study a risen Christ. I bet if I was able to study Christ first-hand I’d see evidence of what I believed (i.e. Thomas investigating Christ’s hands), even if it could be explained only supernaturally (i.e. only God could raise Christ from the dead).”

We are discussing epistemology. Reason and faith go hand in hand. They are not contrary. However, the underlying premise of most of what is called “science” these days presupposes things science has no way to prove or even support. There are many questions that can never be answered by the scientific method, yet science is invoked as an authority, as if the theories which organize the observable data were the equivalent to the data.

Most science is not reproduced in labs, and even a lot of pier reviewed science gets debunked later as fraudulent, mistaken, or even partially correct but absorbed into a larger theory like Einstein did with Newton. Bottom line is that even science, in practice, is based on trust.

When the Bible describes apostles seeing, hearing, and even touching the risen Christ, it is attesting to the empirical evidence supporting the resurrection as a historical event. The eye-witness testimony of those who saw the risen Christ is an essential part of the Gospel message.

As to the apparent age of the earth and universe, a supernatural creation or a young earth is not a specific tenet of the Gospel that one must believe in so as to be saved from damnation, but it becomes a dangerous approach to Biblical interpretation to allow the speculative interpretations of observable phenomena to dictate truth.

Personally, I do not buy into the idea that the earth has literally traversed the sun billions of times. I believe that, apart from supernatural intervention, life would have been permanently destroyed in any one of hundreds of thousands of events of various cataclysmic types if life had begun on earth billions of years ago. I do believe there is some evidence that supports an ancient earth and universe, and these are legitimate areas of scientific inquiry, but sometimes faith is tested by whether we will believe God’s word over our limited knowledge and human experience.

It is foolhardy to place trust in constantly changing conclusions of science above the word of God, especially when there are no practical consequences of rejecting such science other than failing to gain the approval of those who do trust in science. Whether a particular medicine is safe or helpful in treating an illness is observable and testable using scientific tools. It is still subject to human error, incomplete science, and dishonesty due to various motives—not the least of which is the possibility of financial gain by fraud. However, there is no practical consequence in such a matter based on whether I believe the earth is a few thousand years old or billions. Nor would any scientific experimentation or technological progress be hindered based on one’s position on this subject.

You said a person cannot observe and study a risen Christ. I can say the same of billions of years. A person can observe the effects of apparent elapsing of time just as we can observe the consequence of people who witnessed the evidence of the resurrection. Extrapolating data to infer we can see events in the distant universe that supposedly took place billions of years ago is no more reproducible in a lab than the resurrection. Both are historical events.

We CAN measure time in the present because we do not have to extrapolate the data. We can observe starting and ending points. We can initiate some activity and see the result. For events that appear to be billions of light years away, we can speculate as to their apparent chronology and age.

But even if the universe does contain things that are billions of years old, this does not mean the universe was created billions of years ago from the earth’s frame of reference. It merely means that the universe contains billions of years. We know this is possible because of the evidence that supports relativity. The age of the universe is definable as the SHORTEST measure of time traversed by a rectilinear path through space-time to the moment of creation. Technically, this time is different for various objects in various parts of the universe because of relativity.

The definition of simultaneity is not absolute in a relativistic universe. It depends on the frame of reference for the observer. So, the apparent age of the universe when looking at distant stars may be billions of years for those stars. However, at the same time (no pun intended) it is also possible for our own age since creation to match the history recorded in the Bible. I accept the simplest explanation in interpreting Genesis 1 as having occurred just about 6000 years ago from our frame of reference. I accept this on the basis of faith in God’s truthfulness, wisdom, and power. I accept it on the same basis on which I accept the resurrection of Christ.