Question 1: The Fossil Record

[Simon]

According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms "is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin's bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?

[Jose]

Not to circumvent Gifford answering, but my response would be that this is a falsely leading question. I believe in God as creator, and I believe in Jesus as His son. There is no problem unless you insist in a literal interpretation of all parts of the Bible. You are implying, I think, that if one disbelieves the literal account of 'creation in 6 24 hour days' then you must also deny the reality of Jesus as a person. I don't see that this is necessary.

The problem occurs when you insist that there was no special creation AS WRITTEN in the scripture.

Now for you accusation, where did I EVER say "then you must also deny the reality of Jesus as a person.
Either present a reference or please retract that statement ....and discontinue puting words into my mouth.

You would do well to read what micatala actually wrote. He put no words into your mouth. He said you were implying that disbelieving the 24-hour day interpretation goes hand-in-hand with denying the realitiy of Jesus. This is merely an inference from your statement, not a direct quote. No retraction necessary.

snip... Obviously, there are those who insist that the only possible interpretation of Genesis is the literal "creation in six 24-hour days," and who seem to insist that if we don't accept their particular view, then we automatically deny the entirety of the bible, as we see here:

Gifford, how is it that you can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ....yet deny the glorious creation He performed in Genesis ?

From analyses done by others, it has been inferred that this curious viewpoint stems from a firm belief that if one part of the bible is nullified, then the entire thing is nullified--which is what makes evolution so scary.

Where has the entirety of the bible been denied? Once again an evo tries to put words into my mouth. Please retract that statement.

Again, no retraction necessary. Note, for example, the word, seems. Nonetheless, I will spell out the logic: you wonder how it is possible to believe one part of the bible and not believe another. This implies a belief that the whole thing should be taken as fact. If one bit is true, then other bits must be also. I also work from analyses done by others (which you didn't quote, but I put back in for you) that explain why evolution is so scary for creationists. It's not a debate about science. Rather, it's a worry that if evolution is true, then Genesis can't be, from which a cascade of nullifications results in there being no moral code. Why else would Kansans write threatening letters to the school board after they put evolution back into the standards, in which they call the school board members babykillers? Evolution has nothing to do with killing babies, yet to them, they were the same thing.

Now, I don't know whether you would make this link yourself, but since so many YECs do, I merely took the opportunity to offer your statement as an example the the basic principle. If, in fact, you have no problem with evolution and consider it not to be in conflict with the bible, then I certainly apologize.

The bible tells us Jesus was the main creator of the Godhead.
...you evos claim evolution was.

The bible tells us Jesus made Adam from the dust...you evos say evolution made man from lower life forms.

The bible tells us Jesus made Eve from Adams side...you evos once again deny this biblical fact.

You misinterpret the evidence. We "evos" don't claim that evolution created the Godhead (whatever that is...OK, I looked it up; we never use the term). Evolution is based upon data that anyone can look at, derived from the world itself. It provides no evidence for godheads of any kind, and therefore says absolutely nothing about them.

The data do indicate that humans are a genetic variant of a prior hominid, which was a genetic variant of an earlier hominid, which was a genetic variant of a prior antrhopoid, which was a genetic variant of a prior primate, which was a genetic variant of a prior simian, which was a genetic variant of a prior prosimian, etc. etc. etc. (I've left out a lot of the steps, just to keep it simple). Unlike creationists, we believe, based on the evidence, that every species reproduces according to its kind, and that complex organisms do not arise by spontaneous generation the way Adam and Eve are said to have done.

We don't deny the "biblical fact" of Adam and Eve, partly because there's no evidence that there is such a fact. We simply say, "if we look at what god made, and at the clues he put there for us to find, it sure seems to indicate that things didn't follow the progression specified in the YEC interpretation of the murky text called the bible. I guess god meant for us to take some of that text metaphorically."

[YEC]

Jose,
Godhead equals Trinity...but of course you already knew that.

Jesus is part of the Godhead with all parts being equal.

It was through the Jesus "part" that the bible tells us that Adam was formed from the dust...a biblical point that you disagree with.

I've presented a biblical linage several times on this forum....did Jesus in his incarnation descend from a myth as the evos claim?

The bible compares Jesus to Adam...why is Jesus compared to a myth?

Did Adam (mankind) actually fall in the Garden of Eden...or was that also a myth?

Remember, when you stretch the days of creation....you need to stretch other portions of the bible.

[YEC]

jose:

The data do indicate that humans are a genetic variant of a prior hominid, which was a genetic variant of an earlier hominid, which was a genetic variant of a prior antrhopoid, which was a genetic variant of a prior primate, which was a genetic variant of a prior simian, which was a genetic variant of a prior prosimian, etc. etc. etc. (I've left out a lot of the steps, just to keep it simple). Unlike creationists, we believe, based on the evidence, that every species reproduces according to its kind, and that complex organisms do not arise by spontaneous generation the way Adam and Eve are said to have done.

The evidence suggest a common creator.
The evidence that you lined up while leaving out the huge gaps in the fossil record....was deposited during the flood of Noah. Get it right.

You see, we/us creationist look at the evidence, we don't leave it out like you falsely claim. We also don't believe that Adam and Eve were a result of spontaneous generation as you also falsely claim but rather was an act of special creation....but of course, you already knew that.

[Jose]

Godhead equals Trinity...but of course you already knew that.

Frankly, I've never understood this "trinity" business. The only trinities I've known about before have been the Trinity Alps in northern California, and the trinity of cajun cooking--onions, bell peppers, and carrots. This is distinct from the mirepoix, which uses celery instead of peppers. I guess it just depends on how you're raised.

I've presented a biblical linage several times on this forum....did Jesus in his incarnation descend from a myth as the evos claim?

The bible compares Jesus to Adam...why is Jesus compared to a myth?

Did Adam (mankind) actually fall in the Garden of Eden...or was that also a myth?

These are excellent questions. I'd love to know why they compare these myths to each other. Y'know, that doesn't precisely portray my thoughts on this. The story compares Adam and Jesus, and provides lineages of the main characters. That's great. The only problem is that if we attempt to consider it literally, we rapidly run into contradictions between it and the reality of God's Creation. I take this to mean that we were only meant to take the book literally until we figured out the clues God put into the world itself. Why shouldn't the creation itself take precedence over a story that was composed millenia ago, and that was told and retold orally for generations before being put to paper? There's a lot of garbling that can go on when people pass stories from generation to generation.

The evidence suggest a common creator.
The evidence that you lined up while leaving out the huge gaps in the fossil record....was deposited during the flood of Noah. Get it right.

You see, we/us creationist look at the evidence, we don't leave it out like you falsely claim. We also don't believe that Adam and Eve were a result of spontaneous generation as you also falsely claim but rather was an act of special creation....but of course, you already knew that.

I don't think I can buy into this Noachian Flood idea without your help dealing with the predictions the Flood Model makes. But then, I've invited you to share your wisdom in the thread, The Flood As Science, and we have yet to hear anything. I guess this means that you accept the fact that the data don't support your model. Again, it's a simple matter of taking God's hint, and looking at his Creation to figure out what's going on.

I like your suggestion that creationists look at the evidence without leaving any out.

[YEC]

I don't think I can buy into this Noachian Flood idea without your help dealing with the predictions the Flood Model makes. But then, I've invited you to share your wisdom in the thread, The Flood As Science, and we have yet to hear anything. I guess this means that you accept the fact that the data don't support your model. Again, it's a simple matter of taking God's hint, and looking at his Creation to figure out what's going on.

I like your suggestion that creationists look at the evidence without leaving any out.

I have shared my wisdom for several month on this forum, where have you been?

You see, God gave us a hint..it's called the book of Genesis. Science also gives us it hint..it agrees with Genesis.

[gifford]

Wow, this is great. Thanks for the response guys. I think in answer to the question to me I would say that it is possible to believe in the metaphorical content of Genesis and believe in the literal content of the gospels. However I would also qualify this by saying it would not be unreasonable to assume that given the understanding of the world by those writing the gospel that some of their descriptions could be described as metaphorical.

A simple example of understanding based assumption would be that of a child who thinks clouds are made of cotton wool!. It is not until they learn otherwise that they realise they are a build of water vapour in the atmosphere.

C'mon guys be realistic about this. Or do you still believe the Earth is flat because it is written down somewhere.

Our understanding of the universe around us changes with each passing moment. BUT the essential truths contained in the bible are as relevant today as they were thousands of years ago which for me makes them the ultimate proof of the creator and therefore his son through whose sacrifice we are all saved if we accept him.

Just to throw another log on the fire of debate - Maybe the phrase "Let there be light" (Genesis 1, v3) was a metaphore for God setting off the Big Bang? Also fossil records on the Himalyas, scientists in some circles say that the Himalyas are the result of part of the continent of Africa breaking off and smashing (geologically speaking) into the belly of asia, (the part breaking off being India) so would it not be fair to say sediment was disturbed and carried onto the Himalyas by the water that preceded the landmass?

[USIncognito]

Wow, this is great. Thanks for the response guys. I think in answer to the question to me I would say that it is possible to believe in the metaphorical content of Genesis and believe in the literal content of the gospels. However I would also qualify this by saying it would not be unreasonable to assume that given the understanding of the world by those writing the gospel that some of their descriptions could be described as metaphorical.

Since you're new here (as am I for that matter ) I don't know if you've been introduced to this concept before but I'll try and post it as consisely as possible. Myths don't need to be literally true to convay truth.

An oft cited example of this is Aesop's Fables. Now no one who reads the Fox and the Sour Grapes things a literal fox who spoke Greek (or English for that matter) heaped scorn on the grapes he could not reach for being sour (especiall with foxes being carnivorous and what not), but the truths contained in the story transcend the literalness of the story. We all have felt the pang of failure or rejection and tried to justify it somehow by convincing ourselves the object of our desire was not worthy.

The same can be applied to Genesis, and not just the first few chapters.

[Jose]

Myths don't need to be literally true to convay truth.

An oft cited example of this is Aesop's Fables. Now no one who reads the Fox and the Sour Grapes things a literal fox who spoke Greek (or English for that matter) heaped scorn on the grapes he could not reach for being sour (especiall with foxes being carnivorous and what not), but the truths contained in the story transcend the literalness of the story. We all have felt the pang of failure or rejection and tried to justify it somehow by convincing ourselves the object of our desire was not worthy.

The same can be applied to Genesis, and not just the first few chapters.

I think in answer to the question to me I would say that it is possible to believe in the metaphorical content of Genesis and believe in the literal content of the gospels. However I would also qualify this by saying it would not be unreasonable to assume that given the understanding of the world by those writing the gospel that some of their descriptions could be described as metaphorical.

You see, God gave us a hint..it's called the book of Genesis. Science also gives us it hint..it agrees with Genesis.

A great conversation. USIncognito, your example is superb. Gifford, your insight into the worldview of the writers of the gospel is terriffic. Together, you've illustrated the validity of the idea that Genesis is easily interpreted to contain fundamental truths that are beyond what a superficial reading of the story tells us. Yet, YEC, you disagree with this insight. You tell us that the book of Genesis is literal truth, and not metaphorical at all.

What puzzles me is the conclusion that science agrees with Genesis. If it did, everyone would agree that Genesis describes the origin of the earth and of us. Yet, most people don't agree with this. Most see Genesis as a metaphorical story, written at a time when people's understanding could not cope with the realities of genetics, molecular biology, plate tectonics, or radioactive decay. When we look at the data, we find that it simply doesn't fit with Genesis. I know, YEC, you've given us a long list of things that you say are scientific bits that agree with Genesis, but if you actually read and think about the responses to that list, both here and elsewhere, you cannot legitimately conclude that they offer any scientific evidence for Genesis. All have alternate interpretations. In no instance have you or anyone else shown how to rule out the alternate interpretations, short of ignoring them. In every instance there are data that argue strongly against the genesis-interpretation. It would be extremely helpful if we could actually discuss what sort of notion you have about what science is, and what scientific proof is, but we never get there.

I don't think I can buy into this Noachian Flood idea without your help dealing with the predictions the Flood Model makes. But then, I've invited you to share your wisdom in the thread, The Flood As Science, and we have yet to hear anything.

I have shared my wisdom for several month on this forum, where have you been?

I've seen what you've posted on much of this forum. It fails to address the issues, as you well know. If Genesis is as well-supported scientifically as you claim, and if the Flood is really true, then you should be able to give us the data that answer the questions posed in that thread. Not doing so indicates that you have no answers.

It's one thing to say that science agrees with Genesis, and that science supports the Flood. It's quite another to take Genesis and the Flood as a valid scientific hypothesis, and test that hypothesis. If it were a valid hypothesis, it would survive the tests. If the staunchest supporters of the hypothesis will not fight for their hypothesis in a fair test, why should anyone else think the hypothesis has any scientific value?

But more importantly, why do you care? The bible's fundamental truths are just as valid whether Genesis is "literal truth" or not. What in the world can be the problem if Genesis turns out to be metaphorical, and evolution is true? Why would this ever matter?

[USIncognito]

[quote="axeplayer]You must not be a big fan of drawing accurate conclusions from data and information discovered. First of all, even if there wasn't burger in the car, that doesn't mean the driver was not eating one. Perhaps he finished it before the accident. And if there wasn't a deer corpse or tracks, that doesn't mean that there was no deer, maybe there was concrete on the sides of the road so the deer couldn't leave tracks.[/quote]

Your objection is noted and I'll point out that you're trying to make hay of hypotheticals I offered to demonstrate that there are conclusions to be drawn from auto accidents, even if there were no witnesses. It's irrelvant to my point whether the specific hypotheticals were present or absent in the specific hypothetical accident I was referring to since evidence I mentioned in specifically in my hypothetical case might or might not be present - other evidences would be though.

The phrase you're looking for is "red herring."

Also it is impossible to tell the location of post-crash. Unless the driver is alive to tell you where he was when he first lost control, but even then you can't be sure.

Again, I must disagree based on skid mark data, and if the road is lined with concrete barriers, the first indications of contact between the vehicle and the barriers with such evidence as paint chips and abrasion marks. Yum! Red Herring....

We creationists have evidence for our hypothesis though: consider the young earth argument, the fact that the Mississippi River, the Yangtze River, and the Nile River all only show a sediment buildup of about 6,000-7,000 years. If the earth really was old, there would be much more sediment in these rivers.

Since the Flood was responsible for creating these rivers only occured 4,000 years ago, how could they possibly have 6-7,000 years of sediment? I'd also like to see the source of you data about their sedimentation rates.

And consider the wavy sediment in many of the earth's rock formations. Wavy sediment means that the sediment was laid when the whole mountain was under water: GASP!! The flood!!!!

Sigh... one more request for data. Could you cite where in geology, "wavy" sediment is an indication of submarine deposition? And for that matter, could you cite where you got your "wavy" depositions data as well. From everything I've seen, be it salt, limestone or the White Cliffs of Dover, submarine sedimentation tends to wind up with a pretty level boundry between layers.

[USIncognito]

The evidence suggest a common creator.

By claiming this you're suggesting a very uncreative creator. Why else would this common creator use a bilateral body plan for all creatures from the worm to the mammal? Why else would this common creator use a segmented body plan for the fly and lobster, the trout and rhino? Why else would this common creator use a tetrapodal body plan for the Axolotl, Terapin, Chickadee and Gibbon? Why else would a this common creator use broken genes from one creature in another (like Cytochrome C)? If an art critic were to look at the myriad of creations of this common creator, I think the one word review would be "derivative."

The evidence that you lined up while leaving out the huge gaps in the fossil record....was deposited during the flood of Noah. Get it right.

What huge gaps? The smooth therapsid reptile to modern mammal series? The diosaur to avian series? The ape to Hominid to modern human series? The whale series? What exact gaps are we supposed to look at other than the pathetic God of the Gaps appeals to ignorance by YECs in order to red herring our attention away from the DNA evidence are we supposed to be looking at?

You see, we/us creationist look at the evidence, we don't leave it out like you falsely claim.

It's not false... the fact that you YECists ignore the DNA evidence that powerfully buttresses the fossil evidence... oh, and while you ignore the fossil evidence as well, belies this assertion.

We also don't believe that Adam and Eve were a result of spontaneous generation as you also falsely claim but rather was an act of special creation....but of course, you already knew that.

I know this might be against forum rules, but I have to call a spade a spade - you are a liar. Spontaneous Generation is the theory that fully formed animals came from substances they were seen to be near. Examples are Flies forming from raw meat, Mice forming from grain or Goslings forming from Goose Barnacles. The is the absolute opposite of what evolutionary theory claims - but, given that Adam was formed from mud, and that Eve came from Adam's rib - exactly what YECism claims for the "Genesis" of these two.

I personally have no problem with any Theistic Evolutionist accepting some version of a literal Adam and Eve, nor a literal Eden, but to try and claim that the evolution accepting version of the Eden Narrative is "Spontaneous Generation" as understood, and disproved by Louis Pasteur is both disengenuous and a cheap debate tactic, especially in light of the specifics of the theory as espoused before falsification.