young earth Creationism .. again

[PLAYER57832]

- I'm not claiming all fossils came from a flood. You're claiming all were formed over very, very long periods of time?

The fossil record was formed over a very, very long period of time. Individual fossils form in different ways. These are things I learned about probably 20 years ago and you are trying to act as if my inability to explain each and every detail of what I learned means it must be garbage. I learned calculus, too, but I would have to study up a bit before I could do derivations again. That doesn't mean the technique is false.

This website describes several methods by which fossils are formed http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/ ... ormed.html. I may be using inexact terms or even incorrect terms. That website refers to basically all types of preservation as "fossils". I was taught that fossil meant specifically living matter replaced by minerals. My understanding is that that final "endpoint" took time. However, it now turns out that even a lot of what was thought to be fully replaced living matter might still contain traces of living matter. So, even if I remembered correctly what I was taught, ideas about fossils are changing even now. However, and this is a theme I am repeating over and over and over, these changes are clarifications, furthering of understanding about fossils. Nothing in any way supports the young earth theory over evolution.

Well has there not be a fossilized bowler's hat found in New Zealand and a fossilized human leg found in a coyboy boot from inside of a dry creek bed in Texas? Is there not petrified wood that's been chopped before being petrified? Has a petrified dog not been found in a tree? Are there not fossils of fish that suggest fish have been rapidly buried while eating and even giving birth?

I tried to find something on the bowler hat (a type of hat, not a hat from a bowler), but all I got was creationist links, so I don't know the real story behind this. However, I can say that just because something can be calcified quickly is NOT proof, as is claimed that fossils are young.

I remember reading about the ax and don't think this was a case of fraud, but I cannot remember the explanation. I can think of 3 possibilities off hand One is that it is a human-caused ax hit the partially petrified wood, another is that the tree and ax hit both date from a time when humans were here. Note that if this is something from the Americas, old ideas about "clovis first" are being disputed by many archeologists. There is a very good chance that science will confirm the Americas were populated 12,000, 14,000 etc years ago (maybe older, I cannot remember the dates mentioned, just that they precede clovis). So, it might provide evidence disputing the age people appeared here on this continent. (and further evidence against a very young earth). A third explanation, which I actually think was the case here (though again, I cannot find any mention), was that this is not really an ax hit. That is, it is not fraud, not something someone created to prove their point, but is a case of misinterpretation of data.

The fish eating, I have seen and frankly, that it keeps getting trotted out as "proof" is a prime example of what I call false and misdirected "science". They fell to the bottom and were preserved just like any other fish that gets preserved. It is remarkable and fascinating, but not proof against evolution or accepted ideas of fossil formation.

One critical misstep each of these examples make is implying that if fossils can be created quickly, that would somehow disprove what geologists believe about the ages of fossils. This is just not true. The age of fossils is not based on the length of time it takes to make them, it is based on the rock layers where they lie and the age of those rocks.

To get back to an earlier question about the geologic column, when the age of the rocks are verified and confirmed, then paleontologists/geologists look for distinct fossil types or grouping. If these same groupings are found in another area, they can be tentatively used to date that unknown rock. Fossils groupings can also be used to establish a relative time frame. That is, x fossil comes before y. To get a full and complete picture, to put it all together takes many scientists a great deal of time and study. Like many things, some parts are pretty clear. Others are almost complete mysteries.

However, there is plenty of evidence to show an old earth. Understanding each process that happened on every section of earth throughout time is not required to show that the earth is very old or to dispute the "instant" creation idea.

- There's more geologic evidence for the flood than you realize maybe. How about we discuss it in here? Is it not relevant to young earth creationism?

The flood is one of those things that young earth creationists like to trot out, like they like to trot out all sorts of "evidence for God" as if that would somehow disprove evolution. They are independent questions. People who do not believe the Bible believe there was a flood and a creator, both.

-
- Do you mean to claim that Genesis specifically says that Adam and her were not immortal

. Adam and even were not immortal. This is what the Bible says.

- I'm not sure how recent this is, but it's useful for considering how subjective it would be to line up over 5,000 years worth of time using bristlecone pines for dendrochronology perhaps. How many rings do you see here?

A. I already told you I am not a tree ring expert.
B. I know enough to say that simply looking at a picture is not going to tell much of anything.

You are trying to claim that because the oldest living tree we know in existance is under 5000 years old, this is evidence that there was a flood 5000 years ago?

No, I am saying that is one thing young earth creationists try to claim.

I'm not claiming that. Who knows exactly when the flood was? But if that's true, then that's at least evidence that there was a global flood less than 5,000 years perhaps.

Or evidence that some trees survived (just to play "devil's advocate" ..that is, arguing something I don't actually believe).

How about consider trees and then compare with the Sahara Desert and the Great Barrier Reef?

Consider what about the desert and reef?

- Do you have a theory on what tanniynim means? Maybe it would make sense for you to be interested in learning about Hebrew words if you want to know what the Tanakh says.

Whatever relevance you think this has to the debate, I don't know Hebrew and am not about to debate Hebrew meanings, other than to cite the many, many references regarding "yom".

[tzor]

I am not arguing your fiscal beliefs here. (we can elsewhere, if you wish). I am saying that people can claim a lot of things, but evolution is not what created racism.

Evolution did not “create” racism, but evolution (especially Darwinism) was stolen, used and abused by racists who wanted to promote eugenic principles and their own vision of a pure superior race. The key, for them, was to look at “evolution” as a “proof” (or a means to a proof) that the various “races” of mankind were in fact different species; their species was obviously superior and the others were clearly designed to be eliminated because they were not the “fittest.”

This is why, for example, that while the Catholic Church is ambivalent about the theory of evolution, it is highly insistent that there is but one “origin” for mankind.

Note these people also stole, used and abused all sorts of things, including classical music. There is, however, an important lesson to be learned. The road to hell is often filled with moderates who remain silent among the extreme wackos. Whether it is evolution or climate science, when people start abusing science to support extreme positions that are more doctrines of some demented faith than a logical result of the observation of the universe, they are the ones who bring shame to all scientists.

[PLAYER57832]

I am not arguing your fiscal beliefs here. (we can elsewhere, if you wish). I am saying that people can claim a lot of things, but evolution is not what created racism.

Evolution did not “create” racism, but evolution (especially Darwinism) was stolen, used and abused by racists who wanted to promote eugenic principles and their own vision of a pure superior race. The key, for them, was to look at “evolution” as a “proof” (or a means to a proof) that the various “races” of mankind were in fact different species; their species was obviously superior and the others were clearly designed to be eliminated because they were not the “fittest.”

Which is biologically, evolutionarily incorrect.
And the origins of racism predate evolutionary theory by a LONG way. Darwin actually held off from publishing his "Descent of Man" treatise because he feared how it would be used. None-the-less, in the end science does move forward, regardless of how some people try to misuse it.

[
This is why, for example, that while the Catholic Church is ambivalent about the theory of evolution, it is highly insistent that there is but one “origin” for mankind.

Uh.. no. First, the Roman Catholic Church is not "ambivalent" about evolution. Some in the church have tried, recently, to back off from the full acceptance the theory held, but specifically to do with humans. The Roman Catholic Church, like most Christian churches that accept evolution does differentiate between the infusion of spirit or creation of spiritual aspects of humans and the biology. Whether they are tied or not is a point of debate or ambiguity or difference (which term is appropriate varies with the group).

As for the racism=evolution in Roman Catholicism. Again, racism in the Roman Catholic Church well predates evolution. The "missionary efforts" of the church from roughly 1600 up until even the early 1900's is notoriously (though not universally) terrible. That some chose to pull their understanding of evolution into the mix is not surprising, but hardly the blame of evolutionary theory.

Note these people also stole, used and abused all sorts of things, including classical music. There is, however, an important lesson to be learned. The road to hell is often filled with moderates who remain silent among the extreme wackos. Whether it is evolution or climate science, when people start abusing science to support extreme positions that are more doctrines of some demented faith than a logical result of the observation of the universe, they are the ones who bring shame to all scientists.

This last paragraph is why I am not letting up on this issue, and why I feel that both mainline churches AND all scientists of ANY BELIEF need to speak up and clarify their positions. Yes, we are a nation of tolerance, but tolerance ends when we are asked to tolerate lies in our schools along side truth, simply because a few people don't happen to like or, more often have never taken the time to truly understand what is known.

It is also why the scientific community needs to, universally, "get off its high horse" and stop seeing teaching elementary and high school kids, as well as non-scientific adults, as somehow "beneath" them.

[tzor]

This is why, for example, that while the Catholic Church is ambivalent about the theory of evolution, it is highly insistent that there is but one “origin” for mankind.

Uh.. no. First, the Roman Catholic Church is not "ambivalent" about evolution.

I probably should have written that differently, but I meant "ambivalent" in the terms of that is a question of science and not a quesiton of faith and morals; it's the later they deal with and the former they let scientists handle.

You also raise up an important issue, even though it is a side issue. The Church is made of of people, and all people are prone to sin; they are all prone to faults and failures. The church has a lot of bad people in its history, but it also has a lot of good people as well.

[pimpdave]

[PLAYER57832]

Tzor,

Would creating Adam with pubic hair be lying?

And these represent bones falsely claimed as being vestigial perhaps... bones used in mating that have muscles connected to them in nature perhaps.

This is not a question of evolution, it is a question of scientific practices and credibility.

One problem with many young earth creationist arguments and one reason they tend to persist is that they don't really and truly prove anything. Instead, the goal is to simply throw mud on the theories that are generally accepted by the scientific community.

This bit about vestigial parts is a classic. I have heard more than a few young earth creationist "scientists" claim, flat out, that it is just ridiculous that God would create something not needed, why would these things still be there (simply "not logical", according to them)... etc. They then launch into all these ideas about what those parts could possibly be instead of vestigial parts.

Here is the REAL deal. The real deal is that these were determined to be vestigial parts by not just one or two people, but by many scientists who all have studied the specific types of species in question. An expert in whales looks at whales an expert in ants, looks at ants not necessarily vice-verse Or someone might be familiar with a group of fossils from the Pleistecene, but not the Jurrasic, etc, though some people are absolutely experts in more than one group. (and, yes, in some cases there absolutely are errors! -- again, details can be wrong, its the overall picture that is not disputed by the evidence to date).

A lot of this does not seem "logical" at first. In fact, in some cases the people who first proposed these ideas were pretty much ignored or chastised by the scientific community. BUT, they (or their predecessors) persisted until enough evidence mounted to convince a good many scientists in the field that these things were vestigial parts.

Now, this is where young earth creationists are "schooled" to scoff at "experts". (never mind that those they listen to are, in fact, claiming to be experts as well.. just experts that disagree with what the overhwelming majority of those in any field believe).

I said before that science has long since reached the point where any one person can possibly understand it all. Kids' don't learn "all science" in school. Instead, they learn generalities and basics. The goal is to give kids enough of a foundation, enough of a vocabular and enough of an understanding of critical processes that they can then go and learn and understand what specifics they want later.

For example, take Chemistry. In grade school you learn about dissolving, evaporation, the idea of atoms and molecules, elements versus compounds, etc. I high school, (perhaps before) they take a look at the Periodic Table (memorizing it is usually not required any more, but understanding it should be), understand how various chemical bonds work, learn various definitions for certain chemical combinations like "Acid", "Base", "alchohol", etc... When I was young, the idea of orbitals and the idea of electrons acting both as wave and particle were rather new. That is, long known in the scientific world, but just trickling down to basic textbooks.

HOWEVER, even though I had much more chemistry than your average person, learned more chemistry in college than even most college students, I am not a chemist. Nightstrike, I understand is one (or is studying to be one?). I know the rough outline that chemicals combine in specific ways, that reactions occur, etc. I know, as a biologist, enough to be very cautious when it comes to emitting new chemicals into the world around us. HOWEVER, I don't have the tools to study those impacts or to create chemicals or even to know how to go about creating many more complex chemicals.

For each branch of science, there are particular groups, particular professional organizations, particular journals that tend to "lead the way" regarding what is and is not accepted. These tend to have very, very high standards for proof. Sometimes you have more than one group that sort of shares and often winds up "competing" over who has "charge" over what. For example, in US fisheries, the American Fisheries' society is the "expert group" in certain aspects of Fisheries, such as fish names. However, you also have the US Fish and Wildlife service (which deals with endangered species designations particularly), the National Marine Fisheries Service (which gives out data regarding marine fish stocks, other base research, etc). (and note the cross between essentially private groups like AFS and wholly governmental ones like NMFS and USFW&S)

When you say, when these folks who put themselves forward as "creation scientists" make claims like "gee.. isn't the whole idea of vestigial parts just silly", its like the gas station attendant scoffing at the idea that there might be some chemical similarity between the gas he pumps and the smell of a flower. Yet... well, even non-chemist I am know they are all aeromatics. .. etc. They all share many of the same elements and combinations.

Is that "logical"? No, not really. Is it proven true? YES!


See, if creation scientists wanted to say "hey, we don't believe this evolution stuff and we are going to go out and get evidence to show them wrong". That would be fine. It is, in fact, what they claim to be doing. The problem is, they are not really doing what they claim.

Like I said, I have looked over many young earth creationist websites, many of the various institute's articles and ALL, not just a few, but ALL fall into several categories.

1. assertions that the Bible "must mean" something many people, many long-standing Bible scholars, etc, just plain don't agree it says.
(example: yom has to mean strictly 24 hours, instead of the more varied meanings, exactly like the english term "day" into which "Yom" was translated OR the idea that Adam and Eve, all life, was somehow immortal before the fall)

2. Claims that small anomalies mean entire realms of research, whole sections of science are just wrong. (example -- a "fossilized" hat found in a mine means there is no proof that fossils are really old)

3. Distortions. Claims that distort or simply ignore the truth. These range from claims that the theory of evolution MEANS "no god; (usually phrased as, evolutionists say the processes that created life were wholly random -- ignoring that "random" in that context is not strict mathematical randomness, but is really shorthand for "we just don't know why or how"). To claims that a fossil of a fish means fossilization must be "instant" or somehow quicker than scientists claim.

4. Complete irrelevancies. One classic example is to poke holes in the Big Bang theory and then say that somehow proves that evolution cannot explain how life originated on Earth. OR, to make references to errors Darwin made and then maintain that this proves the theory is wrong.


I began looking into young earth creationism thinking I would find a few strong-believing, rather narrow-thinking and generally uneducated people (NOT "stupid", but uneducated) who just truly believed what their clergy said and simply refused to consider anything else.

What I found instead was a whole group of sometimes highly educated people, people very adept at persuasion, but not adept at real science, who have a primary goal of simply attacking traditional, accepted science.

Some might have begun with honest intentions of proving the earth was young. A few still do believe this. However, the science conducted is similar to "science" that "proves Newton was wrong" or that "proves the Earth is flat". It just does not hold up to scrutiny.

[PLAYER57832]

You also raise up an important issue, even though it is a side issue. The Church is made of of people, and all people are prone to sin; they are all prone to faults and failures. The church has a lot of bad people in its history, but it also has a lot of good people as well.

Absolutely. The most difficult part is that its not just "bad people", but more often "very good people with misguided ideas" who do the most harm.

[Lionz]

Snorri,

You've made one or more valid point concerning linguistics maybe, but has light not been slowed down before?

Snorri, Jones, and Tzor,

How about check this out and give me some feedback? See a right arrow type thing below slides? How about run through a handful of slides and get back to me? Do you claim that light can't be slowed down or sped up? And claim that there's not evidence suggesting speed of light has decayed?

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0961.htm

Niet,

What does so called Catholicism really have to do with the Father at this point in time? What if the devil has even used it to try to push people away from Him and to try to mix in pagan beliefs with true worship through history? Noticed an obelisk in Vatican City before?

PLAYER,

- You claimed I asked you a certain question 5-6 times already and I have not by any means perhaps. A question stemming from discussion having to do with whether or not there are aliens with their own deities maybe.

- How about prove that He did not create various original kinds of fish that have brought forth variety since if you can prove that?

- Did you just mean to claim that not much science dates before the 1800's? Maybe much is relative and science can be defined more than one way, but that would be a bold claim regardless perhaps.

- How about explain polystrate fossils if you claim strata necessarily represents thousands of years of geologic time?

- If you handed a geologist a slab of limestone and asked them to tell you if it was 100 million-year-old Jurassic limestone or 600 million-year-old Cambrian limestone, they would ask you if an index fossil was found with it maybe. Are you under the impression that this shows a specific order that's found across the earth?



If limestone and shale and sandstone are found at various layers and depths in the earth, then what else could the geologist do? The geologic column is a fantasy that does not actually exist anywhere on earth and it's a prime example of something that's based on circular reasoning perhaps. See a circular reasoning section here?

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/seminar4.html



- I said UCD and meant universal common descent perhaps.

How about answer these? Should there not be literally billions of fossils of creatures in a transition between fish and land dwelling tetrapods if universal common descent is true? Is there any reason to assume that Panderichthys or Tiktaalik were anything other than aquatic and what has actually been found of Tulerpeton? Skull fragments, small belly scutes, an incomplete pectoral girdle, an incomplete forelimb and an incomplete hindlimb? It's simply a variety of alligator or crocodile maybe. And were remains of it not recovered from the Tula Region of Russia? It's ironically evidence for a preflood earth with above freezing temperatures across the planet perhaps.

Note: I am re-asking questions there and am for one or more very valid reason perhaps. If you don't want to discuss whether or not there are transitional fossils backing up theories concerning fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods, then how about you simply ignore this and we move on?

-Do you assume that Jay is trying to claim that ALL animals were created at the same time?

-You referred to a page concerning how fossils form that gives some information on permineralization perhaps, but what has quickly buried living organisms in wet sediment across the earth if something has? Are you claiming that these show fish that simply sank to the bottom of a body of water and that were not quicky buried by sediment? Did fish have heart attacks while eating then sink to the bottoms of bodies of water and somehow manage to avoid getting eaten by scavengers and avoid decomposing after sinking?







- There is plenty of evidence to show an old earth? How about provide some and then reply to moon stuff?

- You cut off one or more question in quoting me maybe. Does Genesis says that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

- I repeated a certain question asked by you and you thought it was me asking you something in error maybe. : )

- What I'm asking you to consider about the Sahara Desert and the Great Barrier Reef comes down to definition maybe, but did they not both start growing less than 5,000 years ago?

- If you want to discuss whether or not Genesis 1:21 refer to dinosaurs or not, then how about we discuss Hebrew? If you're not down to do that, then how about we move on?

- Do you mean to suggest that Darwin held off publishing a Descent of Man treatise because he was concerned it would be used as ammunition for race discrimination? Do you know what the Origin of Species is actually entitled? This can help you figure it out perhaps...











- And I'm not sure if you're a woman or not perhaps, but can you flip forward to see 4 slides here and respond in a way that suggests you did? Hint? You will find actual words from Descent of Man perhaps. You can use arrow things below slides to move back and forth perhaps.

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0132.htm

- Maybe you should check these out and ask yourself if you have unfounded fears regarding what kids are taught and not taught in school.









Want to see a chart concerning teen suicides or teenage girls having premarital sex or divorces or SAT scores? Maybe you will at least check out an SAT score one here... http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0838.htm

- Do you claim this represents bone (or fake fossil model bone?) that's evolved from legs?



You're welcome to religiously believe that shows whatever you want perhaps, but what in terms of fossil evidence suggests that's the case? Would you like to discuss Ambulocetus? And I might be no whale anatomy expert, but do you want me to provide sources having to do with bones claimed to be vestigial attaching to muscles used in reproducing?

Note: This includes images with words that are not my own depending on definition at least and obviously so maybe.

[PLAYER57832]

- You claimed I asked you a certain question 5-6 times already and I have not by any means perhaps. A question stemming from discussion having to do with whether or not there are aliens with their own deities maybe.

You have asked me questions that either assume I don't accept God as a creator or that ask that. Pretend otherwise, add in whatever context you wish, but you have.

- How about prove that He did not create various original kinds of fish that have brought forth variety since if you can prove that?

He did. He just created other things first that lead to those fish.
And again, regarding details.. you are asking me to give, in detail things I learned about and was convinced of years ago. That I cannot reiterate it all means nothing. I CAN say that the evidence is there for you or anyone else to see. I can point you places where you can find it, with the warning that it is not a "2 minute study", or even a "2 hour study" (necessarily). Problem is, while young earth creationists are happy to claim evolutionists "lack data" and "cannot prove what they claim", they do this by refusing to even really and truly look at the evidence that is presented... in fact, most often lack even the skills necessary to truly understand the explanations.

(as evidenced by many of the questions found in this thread)

- Did you just mean to claim that not much science dates before the 1800's? Maybe much is relative and science can be defined more than one way, but that would be a bold claim regardless perhaps.

Some very significant discoveries were made prior to 1800. Some very fundamental concepts were found. However, compared to the information discovered in the last 2 centuries, it is "not much". However, such statements are more opinion than fact, so not worth a lot.

My basic suggestion was that there are many, many tools and concepts that were not even concieved in 1800 that are basically known by every grade schooler today. Examples include facts about the planets, our ocean depths, nutrition.. etc, etc, etc. Geology is full of things not known or not well known prior to 1800.

- How about explain polystrate fossils if you claim strata necessarily represents thousands of years of geologic time?

I did not make such a claim. I said they represent specific time periods. Some strata represent very, very short time frames (katrina Flood deposits, for example). Some represent very, very long time periods.

I had to look up the term "polystrate fossils", but here is what wikki says:
Takapuna Reef's exceptional fossil forest was exhumed by coastal erosion when the sea level rose to its current height following the last glacial period.In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation. Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors.[4] For example, geologists such as John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have argued that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull-apart basin,[5] and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments. Contrary to the claims of creationists, these sedimentary basins are considerably smaller than the state of Texas. The specific layers containing polystrate fossils occupy only a very limited fraction of the total area of any of these basins.[6][7]

- If you handed a geologist a slab of limestone and asked them to tell you if it was 100 million-year-old Jurassic limestone or 600 million-year-old Cambrian limestone, they would ask you if an index fossil was found with it maybe. Are you under the impression that this shows a specific order that's found across the earth?

It is far from so simple -- there is a lot more to why this is true, but yes if fossils known to be specific to the Jurassic are found in one section and fossils known to be in the Cambrian are in another, then that would be a ready way to tell the period from which the fossil arose. However, there can be complications. Since I am not a geologist, I won't get into them. Likely I will misstate something.

Like I said, I trust the science and the scientists (as a group, not all individually) that create this information.

If limestone and shale and sandstone are found at various layers and depths in the earth, then what else could the geologist do? The geologic column is a fantasy that does not actually exist anywhere on earth and it's a prime example of something that's based on circular reasoning perhaps. See a circular reasoning section here?

Nice try, but no. Shale and sandstone and shale and sandstone are not really just one type of rock, so sandstone from one area is not the same as sandstone from somewhere else. This is true for other rock types. Also, there is a lot more than simply shale and limestone involved here.

One very helpful feature is almost any volcanic deposit. These can spread over a wide area and often are easy to date, at least relatively (know that x is older than y, but younger than a, without knowing the actual age).

[/quote]
More later, perhaps.

[Lionz]

Do you want me to go ahead and reply to just that?

[PLAYER57832]

Do you want me to go ahead and reply to just that?

yes

[PLAYER57832]

How about answer these? Should there not be literally billions of fossils of creatures in a transition between fish and land dwelling tetrapods if universal common descent is true?

You want to say "there should be more" is a valid argument?
In a lot of ways, its remarkable that we have ANY fossils. More than one person has opined that God must have wanted us to find these, now that we are ready to understand the information. However, such argument really has no place in science.

Beyond that, to disprove an old earth, to prove an "instant" creation as opposed to the very gradual one evolutionists believe happened, you would have to show NO transition fossils. Young Earthers try to claim that anything labeled a "transition fossil" is basically "misdiagnosed" or actually fraudulant. In some cases, this did happen. However, there are many, many many transition fossils and living species that represent the various lines of descent (Ceolocanth, for example, is a "living fossil" fish).

Here is a brief excerpt that outlines this:

In Late Devonian vertebrate speciation, descendants of pelagic lobe-finned fish — like Eusthenopteron — exhibited a sequence of adaptations:
•Panderichthys, suited to muddy shallows;
•Tiktaalik with limb-like fins that could take it onto land;
•Early tetrapods in weed-filled swamps, such as;
•Acanthostega, which had feet with eight digits,
•Ichthyostega with limbs.
Descendants also included pelagic lobe-finned fish such as coelacanth species.[edit] Devonian tetrapods
Research by Jennifer A. Clack and her colleagues showed that the earliest tetrapods, such as Acanthostega, were wholly aquatic and quite unsuited to life on land. This overturned the earlier view that fish had first invaded the land — either in search of prey (like modern mudskippers) or to find water when the pond they lived in dried out — and later evolved legs, lungs, etc.

[edit] Earliest tetrapods
The first tetrapods are thought to have evolved in coastal and brackish marine environments, and in shallow and swampy freshwater habitats.[1]p86–87 Formerly, the timing was thought to be towards the end of the Devonian. This belief is now challenged by the recent discovery of the oldest known tetrapod tracks, preserved in marine tidal flat sediments in Zachełmie, south-central Poland. They were made during the Eifelian stage of the Middle Devonian. The tracks are dated to about 395 million years ago, 18 million years earlier than the oldest known tetrapod body fossils.[2] Some tracks show digits, indicating that the animal had the ability to walk on land. Additionally, the tracks show that the animal was capable of thrusting its arms and legs forward. This type of motion would have been impossible in tetrapodomorphs such as Tiktaalik. The animal that produced the tracks is estimated to have been up to 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) long with footpads up to 26 centimetres (10 in) wide, although most tracks are only 15 centimetres (5.9 in) wide.[3]

By the late Devonian, land plants had stabilized freshwater habitats, allowing the first wetland ecosystems to develop, with increasingly complex food webs that afforded new opportunities. [1] Freshwater habitats were not the only places to find water filled with organic matter and choked with plants with dense vegetation near the water's edge. Swampy habitats like shallow wetlands, coastal lagoons and large brackish river deltas also existed at this time, and there is much to suggest that this is the kind of environment in which the tetrapods evolved. Early fossil tetrapods have been found in marine sediments, and because fossils of primitive tetrapods in general are found scattered all around the world, they must have spread by following the coastal lines — they could not have lived in freshwater only.

Is there any reason to assume that Panderichthys or Tiktaalik were anything other than aquatic and what has actually been found of Tulerpeton? Skull fragments, small belly scutes, an incomplete pectoral girdle, an incomplete forelimb and an incomplete hindlimb? It's simply a variety of alligator or crocodile maybe.

The answer is no. A most definite "NO!". However, explaining why this is true would mean going back, studying up on the details, then translating them into a form you can understand. I don't have the time. And, to be honest, if you really wanted the answer, were willing to truly consider that there IS an answer, you could do that investigation yourself. THEN, and only then, might you have the knowledge necessary to challenge this idea.

The trouble is you won't take the time. Worse, the people making these blanket assertions (as opposed to some real scientists who might make some very specific challenges), have not studied the fossil record, either. We know this because of the way their "challenges" are worded, the "explanations" they give for why the information is wrong, etc.

Contrast this -- the opinion of a few so-called scientists who have not taken the time to really study the record they are criticising, with the many scientists who, building upon their own data and data collected by others, together and sometimes independently, come up with the currently excepted ideas. Contrast this idea that someone just said "this is what is true" and then all scientists just somehow believe it, with the reality that each and every STEP in this proces was challenged repeatedly and is continually challenged.

NOTE, I don't say that all the evidence laid out is necessarily understood with 100% accuracy. I say that those people who wish to claim there are enough errors to invalidate the idea of evolution are not really looking at the data and, with very, very few exceptions are using extremely poor science AND poor debating techniques.

On the off chance you might actually be willing to look into this yourself, instead of just bombarding us with a bunch of questions, Here is a website. If your answer is not there, click on the links and then follow them until you get an answer. Note, it will take you a good deal of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod

And were remains of it not recovered from the Tula Region of Russia? It's ironically evidence for a preflood earth with above freezing temperatures across the planet perhaps.

Not even going to get into this one, because if you cannot even provide a link for where you get this information, it is impossible for me to verify anything. However, I will say that if something is found -- no it is not evidence counter to evolution, and that is the question up for debate in this thread.

Your attempts to tie this to "pre-flood" versus "post flood" are again, things drawn from the "young earth play book" and not references to anything I have said. Also, as I said before, whether the flood happened, whether there is evidence for a universal flood are completely separate and apart from evidence for evolution. I will say that the fossil record shows several periods of massive die-offs of species, so any distinct breaks in species are in no way evidence against evolution.

Note: I am re-asking questions there and am for one or more very valid reason perhaps. If you don't want to discuss whether or not there are transitional fossils backing up theories concerning fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods, then how about you simply ignore this and we move on?

I realize you are asking for a reason. It is because you have been taught that if you keep asking any evolutionist questions, they will get to a point where they cannot answer.

Except, what that shows is that no one person can understand all of science or even all that is involved in a theory as complex as Evolution. I HAVE referred you to sites where you can get that information. Of course, you won't even bother...

-Do you assume that Jay is trying to claim that ALL animals were created at the same time?

when it comes to Jay, I go on what he has said before, some of it in other threads. Other than that, I will discuss Jay's beliefs with Jay and let him explain for himself.

-You referred to a page concerning how fossils form that gives some information on permineralization perhaps, but what has quickly buried living organisms in wet sediment across the earth if something has? Are you claiming that these show fish that simply sank to the bottom of a body of water and that were not quicky buried by sediment? Did fish have heart attacks while eating then sink to the bottoms of bodies of water and somehow manage to avoid getting eaten by scavengers and avoid decomposing after sinking?

Again, a whole string of false assumptions on your part. Nothing so complicated is necessary. Take the recent "Katrina" flood event as an example. During that event, massive amounts of silt and mud were moved. Some areas were scoured out, others had deposits. MANY, many animals -- marine species, freshwater species, etc. were killed. Many would have been caught up in turbulant sediments and buried, perhaps, in time becoming fossils. Similar events happen in streams every season. What you see are wholly natural processes. The criticisms lie from people who won't bother to even look into the real processes.

And, before you try .. no, all these fossils are not from one, universal flood. The time frames are varied, among other issues. Also, the types of sediment are not consistant, etc. (which is not to say a flood didn't happen, just that these are not explanations against evolution).

Again... more evidence of why these young earth arguments are not given any real credibility.

- There is plenty of evidence to show an old earth? How about provide some and then reply to moon stuff?

What "moon stuff"

Oh, only the links, not the pictures show up when editing. My computer is slow right now, so if you cannot spell out your arguments, I won't be answering.

- You cut off one or more question in quoting me maybe. Does Genesis says that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

As I said before, yes, Adam and Eve were mortal from their creation.

- What I'm asking you to consider about the Sahara Desert and the Great Barrier Reef comes down to definition maybe, but did they not both start growing less than 5,000 years ago?

Again, I am not even going to answer. Instead, I will say that this is not proof against evolution. Why would it be?

- If you want to discuss whether or not Genesis 1:21 refer to dinosaurs or not, then how about we discuss Hebrew? If you're not down to do that, then how about we move on?

I believe I already answer Genesis 1:21. As to Hebrew, I already told you I am not an expert in Hebrew. Are you claiming you are?

- Do you mean to suggest that Darwin held off publishing a Descent of Man treatise because he was concerned it would be used as ammunition for race discrimination?

More than just "race discrimination", but yes. That is, in fact, what happened. He said this himself, it is a matter of record.

- And I'm not sure if you're a woman or not perhaps, but can you flip forward to see 4 slides here and respond in a way that suggests you did? Hint? You will find actual words from Descent of Man perhaps. You can use arrow things below slides to move back and forth perhaps.

What is your point here and exactly how do you feel this disproves the theory of evolution?

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0132.htm

- Maybe you should check these out and ask yourself if you have unfounded fears regarding what kids are taught and not taught in school.

Your chart on evolution teaching ends at roughly 1980 something. This young earth creationist movement did not really get going until the mid -1980's to early 1990's. The first battles in Ca were in the very late 70's to early 80's. (I can remember the cases, but not the exact date).

As for your charts on teen pregnancies, are you trying to claim that is tied to teaching of evolution?

Per your claim of "unfounded fears" -- I HAVE a child in school, so my fears are hardly "unfounded". When my child is taught that frogs are vertebrates, which means they don't have backbones and the teachers considers this, unimportant, and said teacher also "just happens" to belong to a church that believes the earth is young... it is not an "unfounded fear". In 1980, the date your chart ends, the battles to have "creation science" considered "alongside" evolution was just barely beginning in most states.

Want to see a chart concerning teen suicides or teenage girls having premarital sex or divorces or SAT scores? Maybe you will at least check out an SAT score one here... http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0838.htm

What does this have to do with the validity of evolution as a theory?

- Do you claim this represents bone (or fake fossil model bone?) that's evolved from legs?

I make no claim. Look up the source of that picture, its citation and go from there.
I will say that a lot of museum models are not the actual fossils, but are representations, simply becuase the fossils are too valuable to be given to many museums. I mean, we had a real human skeleton in my high school biology class, but we only had plastic representations of the internal organs. Did that mean we could only learn about bone structure and that we are clueless about the organs? No. A lot of internet pictures are definitely "fakes" in that sense.. and no claim is made otherwise. The studies and findings, however, are made of the "real deal", not the fakes.

You're welcome to religiously believe that shows whatever you want perhaps, but what in terms of fossil evidence suggests that's the case?

I gave you several links that you have obviously ignored, so why ask for "more proof". You make it clear you could care less about proof, your intent is merely to attempt to show that I am not an expert in evolution. Problem is, I never claimed to be one. The BIG problem is that the young earth scientists who claim to find fault with evolution are ALSO not experts in evolution. So, they are criticising theories they have never really studied.

Would you like to discuss Ambulocetus?

Why?

And I might be no whale anatomy expert, but do you want me to provide sources having to do with bones claimed to be vestigial attaching to muscles used in reproducing?

No, I know such claims exist. What you need to do is look up the proof for those claims versus the proof for counter claims..and the credentials of the scientists making each claim.

when you have done BOTH, then we can, perhaps, talk about what you have learned. Simply reciting what you find on young earth creationist websites is not going to get you any answers.

[Frigidus]

Beyond that, to disprove an old earth, to prove an "instant" creation as opposed to the very gradual one evolutionists believe happened, you would have to show NO transition fossils.

I forget exactly where I first heard this, but it's quite accurate. Whenever we find a transition fossil, creationists will say that now there are two gaps we have to fill. They will never accept a transition fossil because they go against their religious beliefs. It is almost impossible to go against those.

[PLAYER57832]

Beyond that, to disprove an old earth, to prove an "instant" creation as opposed to the very gradual one evolutionists believe happened, you would have to show NO transition fossils.

I forget exactly where I first heard this, but it's quite accurate. Whenever we find a transition fossil, creationists will say that now there are two gaps we have to fill. They will never accept a transition fossil because they go against their religious beliefs. It is almost impossible to go against those.

"Almost" is pretty key here.

However, this is a good time to reiterate one point. The issue here is not whether some people have a right to believe all science is wrong. Nor is it even whether they have a right to try and prove their beliefs correct. IF young earth creationists were simply doing that .. simply starting new lines of investigations, questioning what is presented as valid science, that would be perfectly OK.

The problems are they go well beyond that.

One problem is when people who have not taken the time to understand a theory -- any theory want to say "this doesn't make superficial sense to me" or "I cannot understand this in the few minutes I wish to devote".. and then claim that is enough to give them evidence against theories with reams of data. I realize that a lot of people posting officially on young earth/creationist websites claim they have done just that. However, their arguments make it clear this is not true. A classic is this idea that fossils are dated using Carbon-14. OR, that finding a fish swallowing another fish is evidence that modern scientists have the fossilization process wrong.

Another problem is when they try to say evidence that very much does exist is simply "not there". Nice way to avoid any explanation! This puts many young earth "scientists" very much in the realm of "bearing false testimony". If your arguments are valid, then you don't need to deny evidence that exists.

A third problem is when there are claims of proof that is either simply not proof of anything or is just plain false. Claims of modern human footprints alongside early dinosaurs have all been proven false, for example. Claims that the similarities between species are "proof" of a designer (I agree there was one, but that is not proof of it), as opposed to evolution.

A fourth problem is this idea that because the entire Evolution theory is not 100% fact, that means that other theories should be considered "equally", particularly young earth creationism. This is, by-the-way, where the "spagghetti monstor" theory discussion legitimately comes in. Because, if you are able to bring in young earth creationism, without supporting evidence, simply becuase it agrees with some people's religious beliefs, then someone believing in a spagghetti monstor creator should also be able to ask for its inclusion in scientific text books. Evolution may not be 100% proven fact, but part of the theory actually are fact. And, no other theory has anything close to the supporting evidence for evolution. Young earth "creationism" neither provides any real evidence against evolution NOR presents valid evidence showing the earth could be young.

The only way the earth could be young is if virtually ALL of science is just plain wrong (which is what young earthe scientists assert, while claiming otherwise ) OR if God made the earth to appear as if it were very old, even if it is not.

Worse, though, are claims that very short-term "investigations" and "studies" are all that are necessary to "prove" no genetic link between various species. These purported "scientific studies" are simply poor science. They can get boxed in with all the nice pictures and claims of the "hard work", the "extensive" work done, but most real science takes many years. Studying any one species in the wild takes many, many years. There are many occasions where animals seemed to follow certain behavior patterns consistantly for a time, even years, but when followed further, it was found not to be true.

[Skittles!]

I think this quote, one of my favourites, fits in here.
"There is no such thing as an 'Idiot's Guide to Creationism', but perhaps one isn't needed" - Andrei Codrescu

[Lionz]

Frigidus,

Things evolve and there are transitional fossils depending on definition at least maybe, but what in terms of fossils suggests that fish evolved into land dwelling tetrapods or that reptiles evolved into birds or that whales evolved from creatures who walked on land with four legs?

Literally billions of fossils have been found and yet only a handful of highly debatable ones that some try to claim are missing links between fish and land dwelling tetrapods and between reptiles and birds and between four legged land animals and whales? Should the fossil record not have literally millions of examples of each if slow gradual evolution between each has occured?

PLAYER,

- If there's One Creator of the heavens, is that not true regardless of where we are?

- You keep trying to suggest I'm an idiot and I don't appreciate it perhaps. How about prove to me that fish came from non-fish if you can? Give me a site that will take 2 hours to read if you want to maybe.

- If some sedimentary strata was laid by floods and some was not, then is there a way for us to tell the difference? If there happens to be a fossil standing up through multiple layers of sedimentary rock it's from a flood and if not, it's not?

Texas is a pretty big state maybe. What would global sea level rising have to do with burying a tree over a hundred feet tall in wet sediment? The Kettles coal mines have hundreds of petrified trees thirty to hundreds of feet in height with tops and bottoms in different coal seams dated thousands of years apart perhaps. The Kettles coal mines are even inland enough to be in or just outside of or in and just outside of Tennessee maybe.

Also, there are even polystrate trees found upside down and animal polystrate fossils perhaps. What would rising sea levels do to explain either?

- What could the geologist do not counting ask if an index fossil was found with the limestone? Index fossils are used to date strata and yet strata is also used to date index fossils perhaps. Do you claim that's not true?

Are you meaning to suggest that there's one specific chemical makeup for 100 million-year-old Jurassic limestone and one specific chemical makeup of 600 million-year-old Cambrian limestone that are different from one another?

- Fossils are remarkable if there was not an earthwide flood at least maybe. How about you provide a theory on how a dead organism could end up being preserved in wet sediment without decomposing or being eaten by scavengers if you have one that does not involve a flood?

- What HAS been found in terms of fossils? Literally billions and yet only a handful of highly debatable ones that some try to claim are in a transition from fish to land dwelling tetrapods? Should the fossil record not have literally millions of examples of creatures clearly in a transition between fish and land dwelling tetrapods if fish slowly evolved into land dwelling tetrapods over millions of years?

Panderichthys and Tiktaalik are simply fish while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are simply land dwelling tetrapods maybe. Nearly all bony fish have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and well-developed gills consistent with an entirely aquatic lifestyle and Tiktaalik is a bony fish that is no exception to that by any means perhaps.

You just referred to stuff claiming a thrusting arms and legs forward type motion would have been impossible for Tiktaalik RIGHT after referring to a statement that claims Tiktaalik had limb-like fins that could take it on to land maybe! Conflicting sources? : )

Are the Pectoral Fins of Tiktaalik Really Legs?
The limbs of tetrapods share similar characteristic features which meet the special demands of walking on land. In addition to a distinctive suite of bones in the limbs proper, there are characteristic bones in the ankle (or wrist) and in the digits (fingers and toes).

In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The hind limbs in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle.

It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment bones) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we consider that the fish has no need to support its weight in water where it is essentially weightless.

Finally, no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits. While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as “walking” in only the most trivial sense of the word.

Also, discoverers of Tiktaalik claimed that Panderichthys possessed relatively few evolutionarily important similarities to tetrapods maybe. What would that tell you in regards to if Panderichtys is more than Tiktaalik in terms of evidence for fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods? So, what suggests Panderichtys or Tiktaalik were anything other than aquatic?

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation." (Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

NG leads readers to believe that Darwin thought the fossil record supported his theory. But actually he admitted more than once in his famous book6 that the fossil record is an embarrassment to his theory of descent from a common ancestor. He knew that if his theory was true, there should be countless numbers of transitional forms (e.g., 100% reptile, 75% reptile-25% bird, 50% reptile-50%bird, 25% reptile-75%bird, 100% bird and many transitional forms between each of those). Darwin attributed the lack of evidence to our ignorance of the fossil record. But today our museums are loaded with fossils and the missing links are still missing.

As the late Harvard evolutionary geologist, Stephen Gould, put it:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.7

In a 1979 letter responding to the late creationist, Luther Sunderland, Colin Patterson, then Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, concurred:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? ... You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.8

Richard Dawkins’ evolutionist disciple at Oxford University, Mark Ridley, is emphatic:

However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.9 [emphasis in the original]

- Creatures have brought forth variety and I'm not trying to argue that Noah brought chihuahuas and great danes on the ark by any means perhaps. Now did gill wielding fish somehow adapt lungs used for breathing outside of water and become non-fish? No perhaps. What can you provide in terms of evidence for that?

- You say one or more thing like there's no evolutionist who stands by punctuated equilibrium maybe.

- The answer to what is no? Are you claiming more of Tulerpeton has been found than just skull fragments, small belly scutes, an incomplete pectoral girdle, an incomplete forelimb and an incomplete hindlimb?

- Can we try to lay off ad hominem? Do you mean to claim you would have to translate stuff into a form I can understand like I am below you in terms of general intelligence?

- What do you want me to look for at the tetrapod wikipedia page or whatever?

- What do you want a link for? How about simply search Tulerpeton with wikipedia if you think it was not recovered from the Tula Region of Russia?

- You claim that if something is found it is not evidence counter to evolution? Can you explain what you mean if so?

- I have been taught that if I keep asking any evolutionist questions, they will get to a point where they cannot answer? Really? You should be careful about lying maybe.

- You suggest I do not check out sites referenced by you and yet have said little to nothing in three or more threads that suggests you have visited a single non-cc site referenced by me perhaps.

- You were suggesting fish simply sank to the bottom of bodies of water with fish in their mouths and fossilized like that earlier and now you are actually calling on flooding to explain maybe.

- How about provide some evidence showing an old earth if you claim there is plenty of it?

I was at least hinting at moon stuff brought up on page 5 maybe. How about give a response to this?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... 4/moon.asp

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

- Whether or not the Sahara Desert and the Great Barrier Reef are evidence against evolution comes down to definition maybe. They're at least evidence for there having be a global flood less than 5,000 years ago perhaps.

Do you say evolution and mean cosmic, chemical, stellar, planetary, organic, macro and micro evolution? You yourself do not adamantly stand by universal common descent perhaps. It might be nice to see words from you theorizing about how many origins there have been. A couple for plants and a few for animals?

- I'm not claiming to be an expert in Hebrew, but I started studying it years ago and am pretty familiar with it maybe.

- Where did Darwin say he held off publishing a Descent of Man treatise because he was concerned it would be used as ammunition for race discrimination? I'm not claiming he didn't say that, but can you provide a source that says he did? He claimed that a married man was a poor slave worse than a negro on page 234 of The Autobiography of Charles Darwin perhaps.

- I'm not claiming that anything disproves anything depending on definition at least maybe, but did you flip through and see four or more slides?

- What do these have to do with when young earth creationism stuff has been taught?









http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0838.htm

You missed one or more point maybe. You're concerned there's a lack of macroevolutionary teaching being taught? Well, evidence suggests macroevolutionary teaching has led to there being an increase in violent crime offenses, child abuse, premarital sex, stds, teen suicides, and divorces while leading to a decrease in SAT scores perhaps. If we are to teach kids that they are descended from apes and have common heritage with earthworms, then what should we expect? You mean to ask what dropping SAT scores would have to do with how valid evolution is as a theory? Can you define evolution if so?

- What suggests these show bones or representations of bones that have evolved from legs?











- Why discuss Ambulocetus? Well, what do you suggest we discuss if we are to discuss whether or not whales evolved from creatures who had back legs used for walking on land? What do you have in terms of evidence suggesting whales did? Would it be a lie to say that Ambulocetus is The Fossil for arguing that whales evolved from four legged land animals?



Notice locations of things in images below? You can find over 15 foot long and 300 pound whale penises on earth maybe. Whales have no arms and use special muscles attached to bones in order to maneuver reproductive organs for mating perhaps.





If you're going to assume someone is ignorant about whale anatomy simply because they do not believe a mainstream evolutionary theory, that's a personal problem?

- Could the Father have created earth in a split second without you feeling as though it looked old? If you're going to assume that earth is the result of a random distribution of dust particles that came together randomly over billions of years, then you're going to assume earth is old even if it was created in a split second and you see it a second after it was created maybe.

NOTE: There are words in images in here that are not my own depending on definition at least and obviously so perhaps. Also, this includes one or more quote that's missing one or more hyperlink and that includes one or more number that should be raised up higher and smaller maybe... there is misquoting by me in here maybe... you might want to check these...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... lking-fish
http://www.delusionresistance.org/creat ... uotes.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

[silvanricky]

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

That's what I was thinking, too. Of course, I haven't been to a Sunday School in years. After reading through all this, I'm going to re-read Genesis though and see if it actually states that, or is Player just choosing to interpret it to mean that to fit her worldview.

[Frigidus]

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

That's what I was thinking, too. Of course, I haven't been to a Sunday School in years. After reading through all this, I'm going to re-read Genesis though and see if it actually states that, or is Player just choosing to interpret it to mean that to fit her worldview.

It wouldn't make sense. Obviously I'm no Christian, but doesn't Yahweh kick them out of the garden because he was worried that they'd eat from the tree of life, making them immortal, and so now it's guarded by a floating sentient fire sword?

[PLAYER57832]

- If there's One Creator of the heavens, is that not true regardless of where we are?

what does this have to do with evolution?

-
- You keep trying to suggest I'm an idiot and I don't appreciate it perhaps.

Stupid, no. Lacking knowledge in evolution, yes. Repeating the same questions, etc. yes.

-
How about prove to me that fish came from non-fish if you can? Give me a site that will take 2 hours to read if you want to maybe.

First, a definition. Scientists almost never prove something is absolutely true. Instead, they try to disprove things.
As for something you could pick up in 2 hours? That's just it. I have given you the short version. However, to get to all the information you want will almost certainly take you much more than 2 hours. I am not sure all of it is on the web, even and for good reason. There is only so much you can discern from a picture. This is why trust in the scientific process is so important. See, I cannot possibly go and look myself at all the evidence and also, well, live my life. Instead, I know that for something to appear in a journal and be accepted by the scientific community, it must meet some very, very serious standards. It has to be repeatable, use accepted methods, etc.

- If some sedimentary strata was laid by floods and some was not, then is there a way for us to tell the difference?

Yes. Further, it is possible to tell sediments from one flood from another flood. (with some limits). It is definitely possible to tell whether a rock was created in one area or another because the rocks that make up each drainage are different, which, in turn are different from the ocean deposits. That's just a start, but again, these are things that people study for years. Just studying ONE flood layer could give someone a PhD, so asking me to explain it all here and now is just not possible.

If there happens to be a fossil standing up through multiple layers of sedimentary rock it's from a flood and if not, it's not?

Yes, but to understand this, back up a little bit. Rivers, etc flood regularly. EACH flood leaves a distinct layer. Becuase the soils, the rock, etc from which that water comes is different, the sediments deposited by any particular flood will differ. Not necessarily always, but pretty close. Each flood then appears as a distinct layer in the sediment. Each layer then can serve as a "marker" for a season of time. Note, I say "season", not "year" or any other specific time, because not only can the time vary between streams, they can vary within streams. Another area -- say, parts of Australia, might have wind-born sediments. They will look quite different from other types of sediments. Then you have rock from Volcanic blasts, like the ash that has just shut down air travel all over Europe. That dust, when it settles, will look different from other types of deposits. It will also cover a very, very wide area. A flood is often too localized (in too small an area) to provide a real time marker. That is, you can tell, say that 20 floods happened on river x, but did they happen before or after the floods on the river 1000 miles away in a completely different drainage? Volcanic eruptions, however, can cover an entire globe. They then CAN serve as real comparative time markers.

Texas is a pretty big state maybe. What would global sea level rising have to do with burying a tree over a hundred feet tall in wet sediment? The Kettles coal mines have hundreds of petrified trees thirty to hundreds of feet in height with tops and bottoms in different coal seams dated thousands of years apart perhaps. The Kettles coal mines are even inland enough to be in or just outside of or in and just outside of Tennessee maybe.

I could not find anything about this specifically and don't know off the top of my head. However, it does seem that you are operating under some incorrect assumptions . Texas has not always been as you see. At one point, all the continents were joined. Parts have been lifted up to form mountains or shifted. The Appalacian and Cumber land ranges out East here are relatively old, were formed a long, long time ago. The Rocky Mountains and Sierras are comparatively young. In some areas, (the Marble Mountains is notorious), the rocks are bent and melted and twisted from all sort of geologic processes.

Also, there are even polystrate trees found upside down and animal polystrate fossils perhaps. What would rising sea levels do to explain either?

Obviously, you did not read the explanation in the link I provided, because the answer is obviously "no". There are several ways it could happen.

- What could the geologist do not counting ask if an index fossil was found with the limestone? Index fossils are used to date strata and yet strata is also used to date index fossils perhaps. Do you claim that's not true?

First, limestone is itself basically "fossil'. If you were to look at it under a microscope, you would see all kinds of strange structures.

As for how a scientist would age it. They would consult with other scientists if they themselves had a question, so "ask" is perfectly legitimate. Anyway, for something to become and index fossil, it first has to be shown to represent a specific time period or location. Even so, there are plenty of graduate students and other scientists who will try to challenge the assertion. However, if the proof is solid enough, it will be accepted in time. By "accepted", I don't mean "unchallengable", I mean just that you are going to have to come up with something pretty spectacular to show it was wrong. Some indexes are more certain than others. Some are used just tentatively or for relative comparisions. (this rock is older than that rock, but we don't know by how much or that rock probably came from a different area, but where is yet to be determined... etc.).

Strata are more straightforward. They are dated based on layers. Something that is below another layer is usually older. This is not necessarily true, because as I mentioned above, rocks (whole earthforms) and twist. Just for a simple example, if a big rock shelf breaks off and turns upside down, the top will be on the bottom. HOWEVER, all of this can be seen with mapping. NOTE, some times things are so confused no clear picture emerges. The Marble Mountains, to which I referred above, is part of something sometimes referred to as the "Klamath Knot". It got that name both becuase the rocks look twisted, almost like knot in some places and because untangling it (geologically speaking) was like untangling a knot.

So, a section of rock (probably NOT limestone, by-the way) is determined to be of a certain age, based on where it is found, compared with various other strata, etc. Anyway, once the age is determined Or roughly determined (in geology even a few thousand years is like a microsecond to us), then Paleontologists will try to see if there are particular fossils that can be used to identify that rock, that location and/or that age. This is done cautiously.

Anyway, over a great deal of time by many scientists, after many scientists collected a great deal of samples over many years (aristotle is reported to have been the first to recognize fossils as formerly living creatures), they do have a pretty decent picture of certain time periods and certain areas. NOW, with all of that verified data, they have groups of index fossils that can be used to age specimens, tentatively. However, note that "tentative", because scientists are always on the lookout for anomalies. Sometimes they are found. A species thought to have died out in a certain period might be found to have persisted later.

Like anything, the more its studied, the less likelihood of errors. By now, a lot of the fossil record is so well studied, has so much evidence it is pretty close to "proving" evolution happens. The chances that something other than evolution happened is very, very, very small. The chances that the earth is young, though are zero, (unless, as I said before, God made the earth quickly, but made it appear to be very old).

Are you meaning to suggest that there's one specific chemical makeup for 100 million-year-old Jurassic limestone and one specific chemical makeup of 600 million-year-old Cambrian limestone that are different from one another?

I don't know about those specific rocks. I would guess that limestone would be very easy to tell, because being made up of living organisms, the organisms will change over time. Also, the chemical composition of their shells likely changed in time. However, it gets much more specific than simply telling Cambrian from Jurrasic. Rock from the various layers of the Grand Canyon, for example look very different and they look different from rock in Bryce and Zion and Cedar Breaks. (all western US parks). Rock in China looks different from each of those. HOWEVER, rock in Scotland looks like rock here in parts of the US because they were once connected.

- Fossils are remarkable if there was not an earthwide flood at least maybe. How about you provide a theory on how a dead organism could end up being preserved in wet sediment without decomposing or being eaten by scavengers if you have one that does not involve a flood?

OK, first, I am not disputing a flood. However, one flood could not possibly explain all the fossils or even close. Among other issues, not all fossils are even in sedimentary rocks. Nowhere near all sedimentary rocks were formed in floods. I explained some of why above.

As for how fossils are formed without scavengers eating them.. I provided you a link showing quite a few ways fossils are formed. A lot of fossils were buried in water-born sediments. Not one single flood, but many, many. That is known. Some were preserved in tar pits, some in amber (not sure those are true fossils, because I believe they still contain all their organic matter, but the site I referenced included them). ETC.

- What HAS been found in terms of fossils? Literally billions and yet only a handful of highly debatable ones that some try to claim are in a transition from fish to land dwelling tetrapods? Should the fossil record not have literally millions of examples of creatures clearly in a transition between fish and land dwelling tetrapods if fish slowly evolved into land dwelling tetrapods over millions of years?

"Should have?" Who says? Why "should" there be so many more fossils? In fact, it is surprising and fortunate that we have as many fossils as we have. You keep harping on the same point and keep refusing the answers. My response is not going to change. Whoever is trying to tell you this "must" be so is just plain wrong.

Panderichthys and Tiktaalik are simply fish while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are simply land dwelling tetrapods maybe.
Nearly all bony fish have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and well-developed gills consistent with an entirely aquatic lifestyle and Tiktaalik is a bony fish that is no exception to that by any means perhaps.

Your point? I am not a paleontologist. I do trust that Paleontologists know a good deal more about this than someone who doesn't know that the earth is made up of layers of rock formed through various processes. (that is, Dr Morris)

You just referred to stuff claiming a thrusting arms and legs forward type motion would have been impossible for Tiktaalik RIGHT after referring to a statement that claims Tiktaalik had limb-like fins that could take it on to land maybe! Conflicting sources? : )

No, . I sent you to a site that explained how paleontologists have determined the phylogeny of fish, in brief, and then said that if you wanted to find the whole answer, you would have to follow up on the citations and do some investigation into it yourself.

Do two websites give different explanations? Maybe and maybe you just misunderstood what was being said. Either way, you need to follow up the citations (and probably the citations for the citations.. etc.), look up where the information came from. If it comes from a recognized scientific journal, then it is probably OK. If not, you need to find where the date comes from and try to determine if it was a legitimate study or something mis-reported. (that is, the original publication might say x, but someone might have misunderstood and claimed it said "y") Also check the dates. It could be that something was thought to be true, but now is known not to be true.

THAT is the kind of research you have to do to verify, never mind challenge any of these assertions. Simply saying "this doesn't make sense" is like my three year old saying he doesn't need his jacket because it is sunny and there is no snow outside. He is thinking logically, but lacks a good deal of information.

Are the Pectoral Fins of Tiktaalik Really Legs?
The limbs of tetrapods share similar characteristic features which meet the special demands of walking on land. In addition to a distinctive suite of bones in the limbs proper, there are characteristic bones in the ankle (or wrist) and in the digits (fingers and toes).

You want to put a lot of emphasis on this one species. I don't know anything about it. I already told you it has been a couple of decades since I studied any of this and there is a good chance that things have changed a lot since I was in school. This "tiktaalik" rings a bell as either a new finding or a known species that is being evaluated in a new way. I will look over the arguments you present below. If they are typical of most creation scientists they will be full of opinion that pretends to be fact and various jumps of unproven conclusions.

BUT, even if there is a probelm with this one species, I DO know that there are several referenes, not just one, to land species that evolve into fish.

In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The hind limbs in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle.

You (or more likely the creationist scientist you are referencing) are jumping from this Tiktaalik to modern fish and skipping quite a few jumps in between.

It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment bones) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we consider that the fish has no need to support its weight in water where it is essentially weightless.

We have fish that walk on land right now. (lungfish, etc.). We also have lobed-fin fish (Ceolocanth). So, what you are referring to is just a definitional devision, not a break in evolutionary descent.

Finally, no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits. While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as “walking” in only the most trivial sense of the word.

Fins and digits are not related. This is true. This person seems to be trying to take this truth and pretend it is proof against a common descent. All it shows is that these particular features evolved seperately. Something that became mammals evolved from something similar to a lobed-fin fish. Something else evolved into modern fish. They had a point of commonality, (maybe it even is this Tiktaalik, I don't know!) but after that each went in different directions.

Also, discoverers of Tiktaalik claimed that Panderichthys possessed relatively few evolutionarily important similarities to tetrapods maybe. What would that tell you in regards to if Panderichtys is more than Tiktaalik in terms of evidence for fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods? So, what suggests Panderichtys or Tiktaalik were anything other than aquatic?

I don't know if it would say anything at all.

You quoted a bunch of stuff that you apparently feel challenges the assertion that mammals and fish are not related through a common ancestor, but in fact none of that in any way proves that assertion at all.

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation.

Absolutely not true, and why I say that this goes beyond simply believing something different and into outright lying to children.

If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation." (Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

This is just plain wrong. But, when it is printed in a textbook and presented to children by someone who claims to be a scientist speaking truth.. it is believed. I say go out and find the REAL truth. It exists. Do not accept this pack of lies.

NG leads readers to believe that Darwin thought the fossil record supported his theory. But actually he admitted more than once in his famous book6 that the fossil record is an embarrassment to his theory of descent from a common ancestor. He knew that if his theory was true, there should be countless numbers of transitional forms (e.g., 100% reptile, 75% reptile-25% bird, 50% reptile-50%bird, 25% reptile-75%bird, 100% bird and many transitional forms between each of those).

Darwin got a LOT of things wrong. He assumed there was a steady evolutionary track. Instead, we have several huge die-offs of species, followed by emergeance of mostly new species. He also thought the earth was a lot younger than we now know it to be. (millions instead of billions of years old). Again, this is a classic example of what young earth creationist try to assert is science, but really is just ignoring a lot of facts.

Darwin attributed the lack of evidence to our ignorance of the fossil record. But today our museums are loaded with fossils and the missing links are still missing.

We have a LOT more fossils than when Darwin was around. But missing links will likely always exist. However, the parts of the chain that do exist are plenty to show that the picture we have of Evolution is almost certainly true. At any rate, what young earth creationists try to put forward is absolutely not true.

As the late Harvard evolutionary geologist, Stephen Gould, put it:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.7

This is just not true.

And, the biggest point is that if young earth creationists are correct, that there are small changes within species but that species cannot change into other species, then there should not be any transition fossils. Also, there should not be the many layers of absolutely distinct fossil forms that exist. When dinosaurs were around, there were no humans or Mastodons. Neither existed in the Devonian. Etc.

In a 1979 letter responding to the late creationist, Luther Sunderland, Colin Patterson, then Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, concurred:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? ... You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

Pretty much as I said from the beginning, that scientists have an EXTREMELY high standard for what they say is proven. The evidence for evolution is phenomenal. Actually, "evolution", as in the general idea that things change over time, is FACT. However, the theory of Evolution is, despite all the evidence, all the considerable evidence, is still considered a theory.

In no way does this mean that its OK to just bring in another theory and claim it is valid, because evolution is not 100% proven. Again, Evolution is not 100% proven, BUT, young earth creationism is proven false.

Richard Dawkins’ evolutionist disciple at Oxford University, Mark Ridley, is emphatic:

However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.9 [emphasis in the original]

.[/quote]
OK, this is clearly something taken a bit out of context. He is saying the fossil record is not evidence against a Godly design. It isn't. Nor is it evidence against Godly creation. The fossil record is, however, definitely part of the proof for the theory of Evolution.

- The answer to what is no? Are you claiming more of Tulerpeton has been found than just skull fragments, small belly scutes, an incomplete pectoral girdle, an incomplete forelimb and an incomplete hindlimb?

I am saying that this is not all the evidence that exists. For that one species, perhaps. But there are many species to consider.

- I have been taught that if I keep asking any evolutionist questions, they will get to a point where they cannot answer? Really? You should be careful about lying maybe.

I said I suspect this is the case. It IS what children were taught a few years back. I don't know what you were taught, only what your postings here indicate.

- You were suggesting fish simply sank to the bottom of bodies of water with fish in their mouths and fossilized like that earlier and now you are actually calling on flooding to explain maybe.

There have been many, many floods. I never denied that.

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

This part:
Genesis 3:22
And the lord said "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever"

If Adam and Eve were already immortal, then there would be no need for the fear of them eating from the tree of life.
A better question is why young earthers like to insist that they were immortal when the Bible does not say this at all.

- Where did Darwin say he held off publishing a Descent of Man treatise because he was concerned it would be used as ammunition for race discrimination? I'm not claiming he didn't say that, but can you provide a source that says he did?

Look, it took me over an hour just to type this. If it doesn't have to do directly with evolution, I am not wasting my time!

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

I have begun looking over this one. It is not the first time I have seen it, no. However, I gave you almost 4 hours over the past 2 days, plus the time I gave Nightstrike's answer, etc. I am taking a break today.

And... I am waiting for a real response to the 2 posts I have already made.

[tzor]

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

That's what I was thinking, too. Of course, I haven't been to a Sunday School in years. After reading through all this, I'm going to re-read Genesis though and see if it actually states that, or is Player just choosing to interpret it to mean that to fit her worldview.

Isn’t this the statistical analysis of the single occurrence problem? The question of whether Adam and Eve could die at any point of time is irreverent if they in fact did not die. On the one hand, there is mention of the penalty of the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden is death, but they don’t die immediately. On the other hand, the point about the tree of life only comes after they have the knowledge of good and evil.

Given that in any event the life span of the two was still way beyond most life insurance charts, isn’t the whole question a moot one?

[PLAYER57832]

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

That's what I was thinking, too. Of course, I haven't been to a Sunday School in years. After reading through all this, I'm going to re-read Genesis though and see if it actually states that, or is Player just choosing to interpret it to mean that to fit her worldview.

The quick answer is in Genesis 3:21-22. Basically, if they already were immortal, then why was it necessary to cast them out of the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life.

Related, though more opinion, is why it would specify that Adam and Eve had knowledge of sin, "covered themselves", etc., but just completely leave out that they became mortal.

Later references, in Romans, for example, where Paul equates sin to death are generally understood to refer to spiritual death. There is reference to sin being something that gets in the way of us relating to God, that, in a sense gets between us and God. In that sense, Christ brings life and sin death. Sin takes us away from God and Christ unites us with God. This is just a very rough explanation, of course. And, the last bit is not what all theologians think, by any means. However, only a few, basically only those tied with the young earth group, insist that this reference in Romans, etc refers to a real, physical death.

[Night Strike]

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

That's what I was thinking, too. Of course, I haven't been to a Sunday School in years. After reading through all this, I'm going to re-read Genesis though and see if it actually states that, or is Player just choosing to interpret it to mean that to fit her worldview.

The quick answer is in Genesis 3:21-22. Basically, if they already were immortal, then why was it necessary to cast them out of the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life.

Related, though more opinion, is why it would specify that Adam and Eve had knowledge of sin, "covered themselves", etc., but just completely leave out that they became mortal.

Later references, in Romans, for example, where Paul equates sin to death are generally understood to refer to spiritual death. There is reference to sin being something that gets in the way of us relating to God, that, in a sense gets between us and God. In that sense, Christ brings life and sin death. Sin takes us away from God and Christ unites us with God. This is just a very rough explanation, of course. And, the last bit is not what all theologians think, by any means. However, only a few, basically only those tied with the young earth group, insist that this reference in Romans, etc refers to a real, physical death.

The garden contained two special trees: Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and Tree of Life. Adam and Eve were forbade only from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, so by omission, they were allowed to eat from the Tree of Life. Once they sinned in disobeying by eating from the Good and Evil tree, they were kicked out of the garden so that they nor anyone after them could partake of the Tree of Life to regain everlasting life. This is also where it said that because of their actions, pain and death had entered the world, which neither were present prior to that sin. God specifically told them that they would have to toil the earth to provide for themselves and that the women would have pain in child bearing. There had not previously been pain in child bearing because no children had been made prior to Adam and Eve, so they were not "children" of another species, which means evolution is contradictory to the Fall of Man.

[silvanricky]

The quick answer is in Genesis 3:21-22. Basically, if they already were immortal, then why was it necessary to cast them out of the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life.

Related, though more opinion, is why it would specify that Adam and Eve had knowledge of sin, "covered themselves", etc., but just completely leave out that they became mortal.

Later references, in Romans, for example, where Paul equates sin to death are generally understood to refer to spiritual death. There is reference to sin being something that gets in the way of us relating to God, that, in a sense gets between us and God. In that sense, Christ brings life and sin death. Sin takes us away from God and Christ unites us with God. This is just a very rough explanation, of course. And, the last bit is not what all theologians think, by any means. However, only a few, basically only those tied with the young earth group, insist that this reference in Romans, etc refers to a real, physical death.

Player, I admit that my knowledge of the Bible is severely lacking so I had to do a little research on this. My background is that I went to Christian church as a boy, but now I am just a very strong believer in God's existence. I do believe there's a "purpose" from God, but there are so many voices saying one thing and being contradicted by others that I just sort of give up.

Now having said that, I did look into the whole temptation thing with Eve and the serpent. What I found was that the phrase God said in the original Hebrew would mean for us in today's English that "the day that you eat the fruit you are doomed to die" which means that there wouldn't be a physical death at the moment that she sinned or ate the fruit. Eve used a different word when talking to the serpent that implied that she thought that there would be an immediate death. When the serpent continued to tempt her, it repeated the language that Eve used, which was that there would be no immediate death. So technically, the serpent was telling the truth, but also being a deceiver at the same time because it knew that it was only the destiny towards death that would happen. That's all if you believe the Genesis story.

On the other hand, you asked the question of why they had to be kicked out. The explanations I read said that if Adam & Eve were allowed to eat of the tree of life then they would have been everlastingly separated from God with no chance of being redeemed. God created the sacrificial system and then later Jesus came to replace that so that people could be redeemed. Once again, that's all if you believe the Bible.

But this is also one of the reasons I find it hard to be part of organized Christian religion. People say that we need to believe the Bible and trust it. One group says the earth is young like around 6,000 - 10,000 years old and make unjustified attacks on believers who believe in evolution and the Bible. They also think the government is behind catastrophes like 9/11 or that "God hates fags". Then there are people like tzor who say that if you read the Bible outside of their group or organization and interpret it for yourself then you're committing heresy. Finally, there are people like yourself who ridicule the young earth Christians, mock the prosperous, and vote for political candidates like Obama who are slowly taking away our individual liberties outlined in the Constitution in the name of "fairness". Which makes me just say WTF!! and never want to go to church ever again. All of you can't be completely right and all of you can't be completely wrong. I don't think Jesus would approve of any of you to be honest.

[tzor]

The garden contained two special trees: Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and Tree of Life. Adam and Eve were forbade only from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, so by omission, they were allowed to eat from the Tree of Life. Once they sinned in disobeying by eating from the Good and Evil tree, they were kicked out of the garden so that they nor anyone after them could partake of the Tree of Life to regain everlasting life. This is also where it said that because of their actions, pain and death had entered the world, which neither were present prior to that sin. God specifically told them that they would have to toil the earth to provide for themselves and that the women would have pain in child bearing. There had not previously been pain in child bearing because no children had been made prior to Adam and Eve, so they were not "children" of another species, which means evolution is contradictory to the Fall of Man.

Department of the picking of the nits (especially annoying to literalists):

Out of the ground the LORD God made various trees grow that were delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.

The woman answered the serpent: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, 'You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.'"

The first note is that they “may” eat, but not that they have eaten. The second note is that since even touching that other tree next to the first is death, it’s probably not on their list of “fruit to eat.”

More over the whole question is really moot. How old is Adam at the time of this event?

Adam was one hundred and thirty years old when he begot a son in his likeness, after his image; and he named him Seth.

Seth was born after Cain kills Abel. How much later? Well just before Genesis 4:25, the writers list 5 generations of men from Cain. Now, how old is everyone when they are having children? Let’s use 15 for the moment. That would indicate 75 years right off of the bat. Not counting “In the course of time” (the time from the birth of Abel until his offering). Not counting how long it was from the point of being expelled until the birth of Cain. All in all we are counting a span of perhaps a score to less than three score. Assuming you take everything literally.