Jump to content


Photo

Bye Bye Tiktaalik


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
18 replies to this topic

#1 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 24 April 2010 - 08:25 PM

"This is the way science works." Well, paleontologists have just gone back to the drawing board on the fish--amphibian thing. And tiktaalik was doing so good as an evolutionary icon.



Live Science

Four-legged Creature's Footprints Force Evolution Rethink
By Jeanna Bryner, Managing Editor
posted: 06 January 2010 01:00 pm ET

Four-legged creatures were mucking around a muddy basin in what is now Poland about 397 million years ago. And they left behind distinctive footprints, which have turned back the clock on the evolution of these landlubbers.

Scientists discovered the fossilized prints, which included various trackways and isolated prints, in the Holy Cross Mountains in southeastern Poland.  Analyses suggest most if not all of them came from different tetrapod species — which are four-legged animals that had backbones, such as amphibians — with some possibly belonging to juveniles and adults of the same species.

The land creatures likely had bodies shaped somewhat like crocodiles, with fin-like tails and stumpy legs. And some of them were pretty big, reaching up to about 10 feet (3 meters) in length, the researchers said.


Posted Image
Limestone slab from Poland with fossil footprints.

Posted Image
Laser scan of surface showing detail of individual print and diagram relating it to an animal’s foot.


Some quotes:For references

*  “They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.”5
    * “[It] will cause a significant reappraisal of our understanding of tetrapod origins.”6
    * “[They] could lead to significant shifts in our knowledge of the timing and ecological setting of early tetrapod evolution.”7
    * “We thought we’d pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods. We have to rethink the whole thing.”8
    * “That’s surprising, but this is what the fossil evidence tells us.”9
    * “These results force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition from fish to land animals.”10


Of course a 'refining' of the theory has to come now. But the nice little story of taktaalik coming out of the sea is over--these creatures were crocodile-like, and of different species--IN THE MOUNTAINS. Oh yes! It was tectonic uplift!

The article failed to mention the tracks are in limestone. My first thoughts are HOW did tracks left in soft diatomic or calcite material dry out and preserve for 397 million years???:rolleyes:

How about a crocodile on wet leftovers of a diatomic and/or planktonic bloom (depending on the purity of the limestone) in the receding waters of the deluge? Sounds like a plausible explanation.

Any thoughts? Do you think textbooks and museum presentations will be changed? Did anyone see this on CNN? Maybe I missed it. Does anyone know how they dated it? It doesn't say.

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 April 2010 - 01:05 AM

GOOD FIND!!!

People I have talked to still use Tiktaalik as an intermediate fossil.. Has this disproving evidence been publicised on the media much? Or is it keep quiet.

#3 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 April 2010 - 01:53 AM

"This is the way science works."  Well, paleontologists have just gone back to the drawing board on the fish--amphibian thing.  And 'Tiktaalik' was doing so good as an evolutionary icon.


Interestingly, this creature ( 'Tiktaalik' ) along with numerous others ( , Ardi, Lucy, Red China's 'Piltdown T-Rex Chicken', etc, etc, etc ) are prime examples of the Atheistic version of "virgin birth" stories. In other words, you need to take it on faith what the leadership says and don't question/research the dogma for yourself to verify and cross reference any of the facts.

I have always, since I was a kid in grade school, wondered how they come up with this stuff when no one at present modern time was ever around millions of years ago to be first hand observers, let alone a few thousand years ago. Anthropologists & Paleantologists are some of the greatest mythological story tellers and Fable creators the world has ever known. The only thing I can think of is that they must use some sort of mystic powers to channel the dead spirits of these things and these creatures explain in marvelous details just who and what they were (even what they were called by name) and what the ancient environmental life was like way back when. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Personally I stay away from Mysticism and Spiritualism for inquiring of the dead for knowledge as the bible commands. :unsure:

#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 April 2010 - 04:33 AM

The land creatures likely had bodies shaped somewhat like crocodiles, with fin-like tails and stumpy legs. And some of them were pretty big, reaching up to about 10 feet (3 meters) in length, the researchers said.


A crocodile-like reptile is a very advanced for that era. It would almost be like finding a bald eagle before the first feather evolved. :rolleyes:

How about a crocodile on wet leftovers of a diatomic and/or planktonic bloom (depending on the purity of the limestone) in the receding waters of the deluge? Sounds like a plausible explanation.


I thought that was how chalk was formed? The limestone during the flood would be from chemical precipitation "calcium precipitates". It would literally look like snow falling in the ocean. How long it took for a layer of sediment to be deposited would determine how thick the limestone would accumulate before it was buried by another wave of sandstone and shale. In fact, i've never studied the geology of the area, but I predict that under the limestone, you will find a layer of shale and then sandstone underneath that.

In surface seawater, calcium carbonate is supersaturated (although in deep water it is undersaturated for reasons described in this link). That is, there is already more in solution than would form by trying to dissolve solid CaCO3 into the water. It also means that calcium and carbonate are poised to precipitate any time they are given the opportunity (e.g., appropriate seed crystals and a lack of crystallization inhibitors such as magnesium and phosphate).

The equilibrium constant for the dissolution and precipitation of calcium carbonate is shown below:

(3)    K = [Ca++][CO3--]             

When K exceeds a particular value (the Ksp), the water is supersaturated. If K is less than this value, then the water is undersaturated, and calcium carbonate solid in the water can dissolve. This relationship is normally defined using the supersaturation parameter, which is symbolized as W:

(4)    W = [Ca++][CO3--]/Ksp

When W = 1, the solution is exactly saturated.  When W exceeds one, it is supersaturated, and when W is less than 1, the solution is undersaturated.

In normal seawater, W ~ 3 for aragonite and W ~ 5 for calcite, though these values have been steadily dropping as carbon dioxide has been added to the atmosphere, reducing the seawater pH. Aragonite and calcite are just different crystal forms of calcium carbonate. Calcite is slightly more stable, and hence is slightly less soluble than aragonite (i.e., has a lower Ksp).  Organisms can precipitate both aragonite (pteropods and corals) and calcite (foraminifera and cocoliths), but most of the precipitation in reef tanks is aragonite (although certain organisms such as abalone form both).


Does anyone know how they dated it? It doesn't say.


Likely from trace fossils they assume went extinct in the paleozoic. Then they measure the depth of burial to get the precise age; something like (1 inch = 11,000 years). They also assume that the tracks were buried, but you can clearly see that they are found on the surface.

#5 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 03 May 2012 - 08:01 PM

Why did you put in bold that the tracks were found in the Holy Cross mountains in Poland? We find marine fossils on top of mountains all the time, it is caused by tectonic uplift at convergent plate boundaries, which we can witness occurring right now. Did you know that we have been measuring the uplift of the Himalayan mountain range for years now?

I must be missing something, the article that you quoted in no way discredits Tiktaalik as a transitional fossil. It doesn't even mention Tiktaalik... you seem to be reaching for a conclusion that is unsupported by the information you presented.

Regardless, Tiktaalik is still an organism that is a mix between fish and Tetrapods, with clear features of each. It's status as a transitional fossil does not rely on any of this new information.
  • Calum likes this

#6 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 03 May 2012 - 08:04 PM

In fact, this article from UC Berkeley states that these findings do not discredit Tiktaalik as a transitional fossil:

(at the bottom, under the heading: News update, June 2010)
http://evolution.ber...60501_tiktaalik

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 May 2012 - 05:21 PM

Of course they will state that.... Consider that their paper will not be published if it concluded that the entire story was wrong.


Yet we both know that logically it is wrong since all the transitions claimed are now out of the time-line meaning that the entire transition story is taken of faith alone, not evidence, (since the evidence doesn't fit).

#8 Tubal

Tubal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Massachusetts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 12:55 AM

Why did you put in bold that the tracks were found in the Holy Cross mountains in Poland? We find marine fossils on top of mountains all the time, it is caused by tectonic uplift at convergent plate boundaries, which we can witness occurring right now. Did you know that we have been measuring the uplift of the Himalayan mountain range for years now?

I must be missing something, the article that you quoted in no way discredits Tiktaalik as a transitional fossil. It doesn't even mention Tiktaalik... you seem to be reaching for a conclusion that is unsupported by the information you presented.

Regardless, Tiktaalik is still an organism that is a mix between fish and Tetrapods, with clear features of each. It's status as a transitional fossil does not rely on any of this new information.


This argument for finding fossils on mountains makes no sense what so ever and blatantly shows the lack of logic and research you put into that post. Erosion makes it impossible to be able to find any fossils at all given the ages they are labeled. Think about what you said in your post, "Marine fossils on top of mountains.. caused by tectonic uplift". Assuming your time frames the whole earth should be flat if the rate of uplift is constant then why not erosion?
Posted Image

And this does not take millions of years because as you said we can measure it and calculate backwards.

But you still have to deal with the fact that anywhere we find marine deposits was under water right? What of the chalk layers found universally around the world deposited by microscopic organisms that only live in water.

#9 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 05 May 2012 - 11:51 PM

But the nice little story of taktaalik coming out of the sea is over--these creatures were crocodile-like, and of different species--IN THE MOUNTAINS.


Just as a point of clarification, it sounds like you are saying tiktaalik was crocodile like. I'm not sure if you meant it to sound like that, but the foot prints were not from tiktaalik.

#10 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 07 May 2012 - 04:50 PM

"This is the way science works." Well, paleontologists have just gone back to the drawing board on the fish--amphibian thing. And tiktaalik was doing so good as an evolutionary icon.


Even though I am not officially theistic evolutionist, I can't see how this forces people to rethink about evolution.

The find would just be an example of evolutionary radiation, such as Archeopteryx (which, by the way, no one claims was directly ancestral to modern birds). A 'crocodile-shaped' amphibian doesn't discredit the whole thing. Tiktaalik is thought to be ancestral to many tetrapods, not whatever this thing is. It could be, now that we've discovered it (assuming God used evolution) but previously it was known Tiktaalik would be one of the transitional forms.

Of course a 'refining' of the theory has to come now. But the nice little story of taktaalik coming out of the sea is over--these creatures were crocodile-like, and of different species--IN THE MOUNTAINS. Oh yes! It was tectonic uplift!


Of course it was tectonic uplift. Don't global flood proponents believe all the geologic formations today are a result of the tremendous tectonic activity taking place during or after the Flood?
Young-Earth-Creationists always make it sounds like scientists are always frustrated, and scrambling around for a good interpretation of the data. However, even though I'm not quite a theistic evolutionist, this is just nonsense. The fossils made by the creature would probably be another example of a dead-end, or perhaps an entirely different branch of tetrapods, like how archeopteryx, again, is not ancestral to modern birds, but is still a bird. You yourself state these were of a different species. Most likely from an entirely different family/order. Hardly redefining.

The article failed to mention the tracks are in limestone. My first thoughts are HOW did tracks left in soft diatomic or calcite material dry out and preserve for 397 million years???Posted Image


Simple. They just did. We might expect to see thousands of fossil prints all over the world, but things like erosion and flooding eradicated them, leaving the precious few we have today. I don't see why we would find footprints prior to the Flood, seeing how the Flood would immediately wipe them away. We shouldn't be seeing any footprints in the Devonian layer if these layers were all layed down during the flood as YECs propose.

How about a crocodile on wet leftovers of a diatomic and/or planktonic bloom (depending on the purity of the limestone) in the receding waters of the deluge? Sounds like a plausible explanation.


It isn't the most probable explanation, as 1) the animal was crocodile-like, but was not a crocodile. It was an amphibian, as clearly seen. 2) this was in Poland. The 'crocodile' would need to run extraordinarily quickly from the ark all the way back in Turkey if it wanted to make any print so quickly after the Flood.

Any thoughts? Do you think textbooks and museum presentations will be changed? Did anyone see this on CNN? Maybe I missed it. Does anyone know how they dated it? It doesn't say.


Of course nothing will be changed, as it doesn't make a dent in the old earth/theistic evolutionist paradigm. It's hardly relevant. For now I remain creationist, though I admit it's possible God might have used evolution.

#11 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:03 AM

For those who are attempting to argue in favor of tiktaalik being some kind of macroevolutionary transitional, please provide the gradual transitional creatures that tiktaalik macroevolved from, AND into…

In other words, please provide evidence that tiktaalik didn’t simply appear ‘suddenly’ in history as the all actual evidence suggests.


P.S. gaps of millions of years between proposed transitionals is notihng more than speculatory, and therefore NOT factual evidence.

#12 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 08 May 2012 - 04:36 PM

For those who are attempting to argue in favor of tiktaalik being some kind of macroevolutionary transitional, please provide the gradual transitional creatures that tiktaalik macroevolved from, AND into…


Okay let's face it. I'm stuck. I'm unsure if God used evolution or not (it's biblically acceptable, but I don't know much of the science behind it), so I'll just try to argue that it's possible. I think that's fair enough.

(I am assuming the position of a theistic evolutionist here. Although I am stuck in between, I thought I would address your question best way I could)

So far, intermediates (They don't have to be transitional, though) between fish and amphibian have been found. Animals like Osteolepis and Panderichthys are one the direct ancestral line to tetrapods. Osteolepis is fully fish (but with tetrapod characteristics) while Panderichthys is a 'fishapod'. Incidentally, Osteolepis lived prior to Panderichthys. There were some Osteolepis living with Panderichthys, but that does not mean Panderichthys was not descendant of Osteolepis.

Several million years later we come to Tiktaalik, which is still a 'fishapod' only with more tetrapod-like characteristics than Panderichthys. It was a fish-fish-amphibian ancestral to the fish-amphibian Labyrinthodonts. Several million years later we reach Elginerpeton, a fish-amphibian (labyrinthodont). ten (roughly) million years later, there is a more amphibious Ventastega, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega. Five million years later, comes Hynerpeton. More land-advanced than ichthyostega. More years, and there is Pederpes, then Eryops after. This is from fish to temnospondylian labyrinthodont (Eryops).
The link between these and frogs have been found - Gerobatrachus, five million years later than Eryops. Forty million years later, comes Triadobatrachus, which isn't quite a frog but looks sort of like one. After comes Prosalirus sixty million years later, which could be classified as a frog. So there you go, the hypothetical evolutionary line from fish through to Tiktaalik to amphibian/frog. I think theistic evolution/progressive creationism handles this issue well, so that it isn't an issue for us, really.

So no, Tiktaalik did not just appear suddenly in the fossil record. The actual evidence tells us this. God either created in a step-by-step process or used evolution.
Until I'm certain, I'll have to remain humble in my understanding that I don't know everything.
I hope this brings satisfaction to your question.

#13 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 May 2012 - 06:08 PM



For those who are attempting to argue in favor of tiktaalik being some kind of macroevolutionary transitional, please provide the gradual transitional creatures that tiktaalik macroevolved from, AND into…



Okay let's face it. I'm stuck. I'm unsure if God used evolution or not (it's biblically acceptable, but I don't know much of the science behind it), so I'll just try to argue that it's possible. I think that's fair enough.



First – There is absolutely no scriptural evidence that God used macroevolution, therefore your “it's biblically acceptable” is fallacious at best.

Second – Since you are promulgating that God used macroevolution, without any scriptural substantiation, you are personally misrepresenting said scriptures. This is a violation of the forum rules, and, of course, more importantly a violation of the Bible itself.




(I am assuming the position of a theistic evolutionist here. Although I am stuck in between, I thought I would address your question best way I could)

So far, intermediates (They don't have to be transitional, though) between fish and amphibian have been found. Animals like Osteolepis and Panderichthys are one the direct ancestral line to tetrapods. Osteolepis is fully fish (but with tetrapod characteristics) while Panderichthys is a 'fishapod'. Incidentally, Osteolepis lived prior to Panderichthys. There were some Osteolepis living with Panderichthys, but that does not mean Panderichthys was not descendant of Osteolepis.



First – You are in no way addressing my post (as I didn’t ask any questions, I made statements based upon the facts) because you are attempting to totally ignore my post by fallaciously saying that intermediates don’t have to be transitional. Intermediates, by contextual definition MUST be transitional. Further, you simply “SAID” intermediates don't have to be transitional, you in no way provided how they are not. So it is a ‘fail’ on both points.

Second – You ignored the post in its entirety, which alludes to a cherry picking of my post. The complete post stated:


For those who are attempting to argue in favor of tiktaalik being some kind of macroevolutionary transitional, please provide the gradual transitional creatures that tiktaalik macroevolved from, AND into…

In other words, please provide evidence that tiktaalik didn’t simply appear ‘suddenly’ in history as the all actual evidence suggests.

P.S. gaps of millions of years between proposed transitionals is nothing more than speculatory, and therefore NOT factual evidence.



Third – Each and every point you made, and every animal you attempted to link to each other were based totally upon assumptive assertion. And, as I provided in my post, gaps of millions of years between proposed transitionals is nothing more than speculatory and therefore NOT factual evidence. I would suggest that you check the presupposed millions of years that span the hypothetical gap between these animals.


Several million years later we come to Tiktaalik, which is still a 'fishapod' only with more tetrapod-like characteristics than Panderichthys. It was a fish-fish-amphibian ancestral to the fish-amphibian Labyrinthodonts. Several million years later we reach Elginerpeton, a fish-amphibian (labyrinthodont). ten (roughly) million years later, there is a more amphibious Ventastega, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega. Five million years later, comes Hynerpeton. More land-advanced than ichthyostega. More years, and there is Pederpes, then Eryops after. This is from fish to temnospondylian labyrinthodont (Eryops).
The link between these and frogs have been found - Gerobatrachus, five million years later than Eryops. Forty million years later, comes Triadobatrachus, which isn't quite a frog but looks sort of like one. After comes Prosalirus sixty million years later, which could be classified as a frog. So there you go, the hypothetical evolutionary line from fish through to Tiktaalik to amphibian/frog. I think theistic evolution/progressive creationism handles this issue well, so that it isn't an issue for us, really.

So no, Tiktaalik did not just appear suddenly in the fossil record. The actual evidence tells us this. God either created in a step-by-step process or used evolution.
Until I'm certain, I'll have to remain humble in my understanding that I don't know everything.
I hope this brings satisfaction to your question.



Calum, your entire post above is based upon presupposition, with supposed millions of years between each animal. You make my entire point at every turn, and yet attempt to assert that these massive gaps in time and separation between animals are irrelevant. For that I can only say thank you! But I must also re-assert that “If you are going to make a claim, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide the evidence” and not more mere opinion.

#14 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 12 May 2012 - 10:54 AM

First – There is absolutely no scriptural evidence that God used macroevolution, therefore your “it's biblically acceptable” is fallacious at best.


Genesis 1 says:

<Admin Edit> This post has been edited to remove Clear cases of misrepresentation, Equivocations, and other forum rules violations; along with attempted time wasting tactics...

#15 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 May 2012 - 05:41 AM

:Warning: Calum, before you even make one more post, you will answer that following question:

What does the word "YOM" mean within the context of the sentences, paragraphs and chapter as found in Genesis Chapter one?

You will no longer be allowed to equivocate, prevaricate, or in any other way be alowed to "tap-dance" around, or "side-step" theses facts with your mere opinion,. or the mere opinion of others. We want NOTHING more than facts...

Again, if you make ANY OTHER POST prior to honestly answering this question, you will be removed from this forum...

#16 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 13 May 2012 - 09:23 PM

:Warning: Calum, before you even make one more post, you will answer that following question:

What does the word "YOM" mean within the context of the sentences, paragraphs and chapter as found in Genesis Chapter one?

You will no longer be allowed to equivocate, prevaricate, or in any other way be alowed to "tap-dance" around, or "side-step" theses facts with your mere opinion,. or the mere opinion of others. We want NOTHING more than facts...

Again, if you make ANY OTHER POST prior to honestly answering this question, you will be removed from this forum...


I don't remember seeing anything in my posts to suggest equivocation, misrepresentation, prevarication, 'time-wasting tactics', or breaking other forum rules. It would be greatly appreciated if you were to show me exactly where I made these errors, so I could avoid doing so again in the future.

I cannot see how I "tap-danced" or "side-stepped" anything. I merely wanted to stay on the topic. I wasn't in the mood for arguing on the subject of old earth/young earth for the time being, I merely wanted to discuss transitions. As I seemingly have no choice but to enter a discussion on 'YOM' again, I will tell you what I think yom means in the context of Genesis as best I can:

As you ought to know, yom can mean three things: a 12 hour day, a 24 hour day, or a long period of time. We know there were 'evenings and mornings', so only 24 hour days and long period of time is left. The simple fact that yom can mean a long period of time is strike one.

<Admin Edit> This post has been edited to remove Clear cases of misrepresentation, Equivocations, and other forum rules violations; along with attempted time wasting tactics...

YOM (Day) when combined with consistant periods of time (Morning + Night) = one twenty-four hour period.
The Question specifically asked for the definition of YOM (Day) with in the CONTEXT of Genesis one.

1- To attempt to claim a day (within the context of Genesis Chapter One) means any thing other than a twenty-four period is an equivocation (or conversion by definition) AND prevarication.
2-To continue the attempt in claiming a day (within the context of Genesis Chapter One) means any thing other than a twenty-four period is a 'time-wasting tactic', and is "Side-Stepping" the actual issue.
3-To attempt to claim what you THINK YOM (Day) means OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT of the literature is an equivocation (or conversion by definition) AND prevarication.
4-To attempt to claim that YOM (Day) can mean other than a twenty-four hour period (12 hour day, long period of time etc...) OUTSIDE the CONTEXT of the literature is an equivocation (or conversion by definition) AND prevarication
.


#17 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 14 May 2012 - 03:51 AM

I don't want to add or take anything from the preceeding posts, but I think that Calum misses the point by his inclusion (or intrusion) of evolution within creation. As has been aptly stated by many, theistic evolution requires that death entered into the world by happenstance, and was thereby a natural result. SInce sin and death have everything to do with the atonement of Christ, and hence, our salvation, then TE becomes a central error. I am not saying Calum is not saved, I am saying that this error tampers with the doctrine of sin, which is a central Christian doctrine.

It has been my observation that in dealing with TE's, there is a mere brushing aside of these issues, as though somehow truth has no bearing in our salvation. But Paul was clear, that by one man death entered into the world, and by one Man, death will be swallowed up in victory. The wages of sin is death. But evolution says death is a result of mere natural processes, and was caused by natural processes.

Under TE, even if you allow God in the mix, you have no fall, or action of original sin, or deceitfulness by the serpent. Without the fall, how is Paul justified by teaching on the flesh, or the works of the flesh, which we now call the sin nature in man? Where is the fall under TE? Where is the curse that caused ecological and biological changes in the soil, and in Eve's body? Or was Eve just a group of female apes that became intelligent enough to be moral, and then again fell? TE is therefore an affront to the supernatural power of God. It prefers the tales of millions of years of sedimentation, death of organisms, and natural selection, over the flood, catastrophe, and a Holy God, which judged sin, but also made a Way to be delivered! May God deliver theistic evolutionists from the deceit of Darwin!
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#18 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 14 May 2012 - 08:53 AM

We have fish-like things that leave impressions in mud today. Those impressions are just as much evidence that land-dwellers evolved from ocean-dwellers as any other find. I.e. it's no evidence at all unless the evolutionary paradigm has already been assumed as true.

And, as has already been hinted at, almost any fossil remnant is clear indication of a sudden and catastrophic watery event that affected vast regions not too long ago.
  • JayShel likes this

#19 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2285 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 16 May 2012 - 01:28 PM

Ron: quote; "It has been my observation that in dealing with TE's, there is a mere brushing aside of these issues, as though somehow truth has no bearing in our salvation. But Paul was clear, that by one man death entered into the world, and by one Man, death will be swallowed up in victory. The wages of sin is death. But evolution says death is a result of mere natural processes, and was caused by natural processes."

You said it, brother. Theo evos constantly equivocate on what God plainly said in Genesis and Romans and sometimes go to unbelievable mental contortions to escape the obvious. I sometimes wish the 'committed' ones among them would just raise the white flag and quit pretending to be believers. It's discraceful to see how they treat God's holy Word.

One would think that mere Christian honesty would bring such individuals to understand that 'and the evening and the morning were the first day..." concerning each day of creation would be enough. But for many, it's not.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users