Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

  • Thread starter Thread starter NSmith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Limited outline and observations on the Biblical seven days of the Creation week (Genesis 1):
  1. God created the heavens and the earth. There was darkness over the abyss. A mighty wind swept over the waters. God created light and darkness, day and night. Evening and morning were the structure of the first day.
  2. God created the sky and created a dome and separated the waters into two regions below the dome and above the dome.
  3. God created dry land and separated it from the waters. God created soil and plants. The plants contain both seeds and fruit.
  4. God created the sun, moon, stars and other heavenly bodies.
    5: God created fish and birds
  5. God created animals and the first humans: Adam and Eve.
  6. Creation is complete. God rests.
Limited observations:
  1. Waters above and waters below…We don’t quite know what this means but we can accept that this happened. We don’t see this now.
  2. Soil and plants were created before sun, moon and stars. Soil was created in a day (or less) where normally it would take much longer. Mature plants were created in a day. The plants already contain both seeds and fruit.
  3. Mature heavenly bodies were formed (sun, moon, stars, more). The heavenly bodies illuminate the earth and are visible from the earth.
  4. Mature fish and birds were formed.
  5. Mature animals, creeping/crawling things and humans were formed.
Given that God is doing the Creation, nothing is impossible for God and He can create fully mature specimens of Creation without long intervals of time.

Soil is not normally created in a day but it happened that way at Creation. That would be seem to be the easier part but nothing is impossible for God.

Much later at the wedding at Cana, Jesus Christ “instantly” turned water into mature wine. That didn’t require the weeks and months that it would normally require. Many children have heard this story and believed it. I was one of them.
 
  • Ah, my Lord GOD! You made the heavens and the earth with your great power and your outstretched arm; nothing is too difficult for you. Jeremiah 32:17
  • With men this is impossible, but for God, nothing is impossible Mt 19:26
  • With men it is impossible, but not with God, Mk 10:27
  • For with God nothing will be impossible Lk 1:37
  • What is impossible with men is possible with God Lk 18:27
 
stoplooklisten said:
  • God created fish and birds
  • God created animals and the first humans: Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
Demonstrably false. There is a large gap between the first land animal fossils and the much later earliest bird fossils. The record of the earth (that you say God created) shows that Genesis has things in the wrong order here.

We still have the original of the earth. We only have a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy … of Genesis.

Which do you think is more reliable?
 
buffalo said:
A few pieces of a million piece puzzle we should trust? Unless you apriori have decided what the box cover looks like.
Click to expand...
We still have the original copy of the earth. Do you have the original copy of Genesis in Moses’ handwriting?
 
rossum said:
We still have the original copy of the earth.
Click to expand...
Uh no. You do not have an original copy. Unless your claim is earth is unchanging?

Revelation gives us information direct from the One who came up with the box cover.
 
rossum said:
Demonstrably false. There is a large gap between the first land animal fossils and the much later earliest bird fossils.
Click to expand...
UNDemonstrably false. There is a large gap between the first land animal fossils that we have found so far and the much later earliest bird fossils.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
rossum:
Demonstrably false. There is a large gap between the first land animal fossils and the much later earliest bird fossils.
Click to expand...
UNDemonstrably false. There is a large gap between the first land animal fossils that we have found so far and the much later earliest bird fossils.
Click to expand...
How long a gap?
 
Pattylt said:
So we haven’t figured out how planets formed?
Click to expand...
I didn’t know a theory or two amounts to “figured it out”…
We haven’t figured out how chemicals interact?
Click to expand...
You comparing the study of chemistry to the study of what might have happened on earth millions-billions of years ago? Is this a joke?
We absolutely have figured out much of how God did it! Why should we stop trying? We’ve done pretty good so far!
Click to expand...
Sounds suspiciously like you’ve been reading way too many Darwinist comic books. It is fairy-tale nonsense to claim that we have figured out the process God used to produce the history of life on earth – or even “much” of that process. For Pete’s sake, we can’t even be sure of what happened, let alone how it happened!

First of all, Darwinism stands or falls on the fossil record, and the fundamental theme of Darwinist folklore – universal common descent – is flat-out contradicted by the fossil record:
There is no evidence of a “tree of common descent” linking the first life-forms (bacteria and algae) to the first complex, multicellular life-forms that suddenly appeared later in the Ediacaran period.
There is no “tree of common descent” linking the Ediacaran biota to the dozens of novel phyla that suddenly appeared later during the Cambrian explosion (in fact, many paleontologists believe the Ediacaran biota become extinct before the Cambrian explosion).
There is no “tree of common descent” linking the dozens of Cambrian phyla to each another.

So Darwin’s “tree of life” can be safely dismissed as a fantasy, sold by Darwinist charlatans to all those deceived evo-warriors out there who think they’ve been taught honest science.

Secondly, the process that Darwinism claims is responsible for the history of life on earth – beneficial mutations selected by nature – is a theory that cannot ever be tested. For example, there is no way to test that a bird evolved from a reptile via mutations and natural selection (we can’t even demonstrate that a bird did in fact evolve from a reptile, which is simply an assumption based on Darwinian theory).

An untestable theory doesn’t even qualify as science:
“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.” (Dr. Collin Patterson)

Yet here you are claiming that a phantasmagorical “tree of life” and an untestable theory add to figuring out how God did it. Bizarre.

Face it, amigo - you’ve been conned.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Have you ever noticed how some trees, such as Oak or Sycamore, suppress the growth of other plants near them? Mistletoe is a parasitic plant, which steals nutrients from its host. Some climbing plants, like Ivy or Bindweed can kill the plant they are climbing on.
Click to expand...
I once saw a pumpkin beat up a cabbage.
 
Last edited:
Buzzard3 said:
An untestable theory doesn’t even qualify as science:
Click to expand...
So, what is the test for Creationism? What could God not create?

Darwin specified things that could not evolve, so as to provide a potential falsification of his theory. What are the potential scientific falsifications of Creationism?
 
stoplooklisten said:
Given that God is doing the Creation, nothing is impossible for God and He can create fully mature specimens of Creation without long intervals of time.
Click to expand...
Makes curious the compelling evidence that there actually have been long intervals of time.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
It does, it just does not evolve by direct routes, it has to evolve by indirect routes. Professor Behe was correct about that.
Click to expand...
Nope - fsci is information for a purpose, unless you are willing to concede to guided evolution, but that wouldn’t be evolution as you propose…
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
rossum:
Demonstrably false. There is a large gap between the first land animal fossils and the much later earliest bird fossils.
Click to expand...
UNDemonstrably false. There is a large gap between the first land animal fossils that we have found so far and the much later earliest bird fossils.
Click to expand...
And how long was that gap?

Or have you realised that you have comitted a ‘Buffalo’. That is, taking an unscientific position and trying to back it up with science. You’ll always find a contradiction in there somewhere.

But a rough approximation will do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top