God is...
- Thread starter studentofthemarkets
- Start date
- Status
You will find a lot of assumptions to fill up the gaps in the records. The problem is that evolutionists BELIEVE the macroevolution must have happened, but the fossil evidence itself is missing.
This quote from the article I posted earlier, https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_5_abrup/#fn68
shows the lengths evolutionists go to out of desperation to find macroevolution evidence. To sum it up, the origin of whales is thought to represent macroevolution from land mammals to fully aquatic whales. However, when looking closely at the evidence, there is really nothing to see. According to the article there are only "fossils illustrating three or four steps that bridge the precurser of whales to today's mammals." The "evidence" is along the lines of land-mammals having ear-bones, etc. similar to whales. Now, this does not create a problem for a creationist who believes God created all creatures according to the traits He chose to give them. But it does create a problem for an evolutionist who really needs to find evidence for his belief. In order to explain a few similarities in the fossil record between whales and land mammals, they have come up with a storyline that is impractical, due to all the other changes that would be required to take place. Here is the quote:
Of course there are a handful of examples where evolutionary scientists believe they have found transitional fossils documenting gradual Darwinian evolution. The origin of whales has been called a “poster child for macroevolution,”86 where it is believed that around 55 million years ago, certain land mammals lost their hind-limbs and evolved into fully aquatic whales. In particular, it is claimed there are fossil land-mammals with ear-bones similar to whales, and fossil whale-like mammals that retain their hindlimbs.
Even though vertebrate and whale expert Phillip Gingerich admits that we only have “fossils illustrating three or four steps that bridge the precursor of whales to today’s mammals,”87 let’s assume for a moment that a full sequence of fossils exists. Is this enough to demonstrate that this transition occurred? Even if there are fossils that look like potential intermediate forms, if the overall evolutionary story does not make sense, then the fossils cannot be transitional. In this case, the Darwinian evolution of whales from land-mammals faces serious mathematical challenges from population genetics.
Many changes would have been necessary to convert a land-mammal into a whale, including:
- Emergence of a blowhole, with musculature and nerve control
- Modification of the eye for permanent underwater vision
- Ability to drink sea water
- Forelimbs transformed into flippers
- Modification of skeletal structure
- Ability to nurse young underwater
- Origin of tail flukes and musculature
- Blubber for temperature insulation88
Many of these necessary adaptations would require multiple coordinated changes. But as we saw in Problem 3, such simultaneous mutations require extremely long periods of time to arise via the Darwinian mechanism. Whale evolution now runs into a severe problem. The fossil record requires that the evolution of whales from small land mammals would have to have taken place in less than 10 million years.89 That may sound like a long time, but it actually falls dramatically short, especially given that whales have small population sizes and long generation times.90 Biologist Richard Sternberg has examined the requirements of this transition mathematically and puts it this way: “Too many genetic re-wirings, too little time.”91
Whale origins thus provides an interesting case study of evolutionary transitions: On a rare occasion where there actually are fossils that potentially show intermediate traits, unguided neo-Darwinian evolution is invalidated by the short amount of time allowed by the fossil record. If this “poster child” of macroevolution doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, what does this tell us about other cases where evolutionists tout supposed transitional fossils?
Last edited:
Here's an article showing problems that arise from the theory that birds came from dinosaurs.
https://www.icr.org/article/what-would-need-change-for-dinosaur-evolve-into-bi
What Would Need to Change for a Dinosaur to Evolve into a Bird?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Evolutionists have expended great effort in trying to establish that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Some skeletal similarities do exist—encouraging them to minimize the differences and to champion any possible clue (like hints of feathers in theropod dinosaurs) that the two classes might be related. Now it appears that some would even resort to fraud to establish such a lineage. It behooves us to step back and take a look. What structural and physiological transformations must occur to change one into the other? The following abridged list of evolutionary obstacles might be helpful.
Wings: The proposed ancestors of birds are thought to have walked on their hind legs. Their diminutive forelimbs had digits similar to a hand, but consisting only of digits one, two, and three. Bird forelimbs consist of digits two, three, and four. Today, most hold that ground-dwelling theropods learned to run fast and jump to catch insects and eventually used arms with frayed scales to fly. But flight requires fully formed, interlocking feathers and hollow bones, not to mention the flight muscles and keeled sternum to anchor the muscles.
Feathers: Feathers are not at all similar to scales. Even if scales were frayed, they would not be interlocking and impervious to air as are feathers. Actually, feathers are more similar to hair follicles than scales. Could such precise design arise by mutation? In all the recent discoveries of dinosaur fossils with "feathers," the "feathers" are merely inferred. What is actually present is better described as thin filaments which originate under the skin.
Bones: Birds have delicate, hollow bones to lighten their weight while dinosaurs had solid bones. The placement and design of bird bones may be analogous to those in dinosaurs, but they are actually quite different. For example, the heavy tail of dinosaurs (needed for balance on two legs) would prohibit any possible flight. And besides, the theropods were "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs, not "bird-hipped" as would be expected for bird ancestors.
Warm blooded: Birds are warmblooded with exceptionally high metabolism and food demands. While dinosaur metabolism is in question, all modern reptiles are cold-blooded with a more lethargic life style.
Lungs: Birds are unique among land-dwelling vertebrates in that they don't breathe in and out. The air flows continually in a one-directional loop supporting the bird's high metabolism. Reptilian respiration is entirely different, more like that in mammals.
Other organs: The soft parts of birds and dinosaurs, in addition to the lungs, are totally different. A recent "mummified" dinosaur, with soft tissue fossilized, proved to be quite like a crocodile, and not at all like a bird.
Thus, the dinosaur-to-bird transition is blocked by many major obstacles, not just the acquisition of feathers. It gets even worse, for in order to make the transition, most if not all of the definitive characteristics must be acquired simultaneously. They all must be present or else none serves a valid purpose. Evolutionary stories don't fit the facts.
Wings: The proposed ancestors of birds are thought to have walked on their hind legs. Their diminutive forelimbs had digits similar to a hand, but consisting only of digits one, two, and three. Bird forelimbs consist of digits two, three, and four. Today, most hold that ground-dwelling theropods learned to run fast and jump to catch insects and eventually used arms with frayed scales to fly. But flight requires fully formed, interlocking feathers and hollow bones, not to mention the flight muscles and keeled sternum to anchor the muscles.
Feathers: Feathers are not at all similar to scales. Even if scales were frayed, they would not be interlocking and impervious to air as are feathers. Actually, feathers are more similar to hair follicles than scales. Could such precise design arise by mutation? In all the recent discoveries of dinosaur fossils with "feathers," the "feathers" are merely inferred. What is actually present is better described as thin filaments which originate under the skin.
Bones: Birds have delicate, hollow bones to lighten their weight while dinosaurs had solid bones. The placement and design of bird bones may be analogous to those in dinosaurs, but they are actually quite different. For example, the heavy tail of dinosaurs (needed for balance on two legs) would prohibit any possible flight. And besides, the theropods were "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs, not "bird-hipped" as would be expected for bird ancestors.
Warm blooded: Birds are warmblooded with exceptionally high metabolism and food demands. While dinosaur metabolism is in question, all modern reptiles are cold-blooded with a more lethargic life style.
Lungs: Birds are unique among land-dwelling vertebrates in that they don't breathe in and out. The air flows continually in a one-directional loop supporting the bird's high metabolism. Reptilian respiration is entirely different, more like that in mammals.
Other organs: The soft parts of birds and dinosaurs, in addition to the lungs, are totally different. A recent "mummified" dinosaur, with soft tissue fossilized, proved to be quite like a crocodile, and not at all like a bird.
Thus, the dinosaur-to-bird transition is blocked by many major obstacles, not just the acquisition of feathers. It gets even worse, for in order to make the transition, most if not all of the definitive characteristics must be acquired simultaneously. They all must be present or else none serves a valid purpose. Evolutionary stories don't fit the facts.
I am sure I have to agree that birds are not crocodiles.
https://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-next-door/
He might have inherited that idea from his father.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young...ood_geology,_the_fossil_record,_and_dinosaurs
So it's possible to have different ideas and theories. And I have found evidence humans and dinosaurs lived (and played) together -- at least through the ice age.
So it's possible to have different ideas and theories. And I have found evidence humans and dinosaurs lived (and played) together -- at least through the ice age.
View attachment 266672
Thanks for sharing the proof!!!
That is not so far off from what I think happened. The ice age likely came soon after Noah's ark, the abundance of water receding slowly and change in climate likely brought that about. However, I hardly think they played ice hockey with a pet dino....but of course, you never know!!!
I want to be careful here, there are many believers in Jesus who do not hold to the extreme literal interpretation of the Bible that I believe in. One does not have to believe in dinosaurs existing with humans in order to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and paid for our sins, offering salvation to those who will repent and put their trust in Him.
There are even some evolutionists who have been born again by Jesus Christ. I think they are wrongly interpreting God's word and scientific evidence, but at least they are saved from the punishment of their sins.
Last edited:
I agree that organized religion is often cultish and insistent. I also agree that most religions have no proof.
However, I want to give you some things to think to hopefully change your mind.
First of all, although some forms of Christianity do take on cultic characteristics, this is not what is taught in the Bible.
Christianity based solely on the Bible should result in:
- People loving others. Jesus said to love our enemies. Christians are to consider the example of Jesus giving up His life for us to help us to be willing to give up our own lives for other believers. I think the context is in persecution. The point is that Christians are not supposed to be selfish but caring about others even risking their own lives, if necessary. 1 Jn 3:16
- Giving is not to be compulsory. “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion” 2 Cor 9:7
- People should be respected. "Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity." 1 Tim 5:2
- Those in church authority are not to be domineering over the congregation, but to lead by example. 1 Peter 5:2,3
As far as being insistent, there is nothing in the New Testament that teaches a believer to be forceful in their presentation of the gospel. The plea is always, “whosoever will” may come. Rev 22:17
The Bible IS insistent, however, that there is only one God, and He has revealed Himself to humanity through the Bible. It is also clear that all of humanity is under judgment for rebellion against God and that is why there is so much evil and suffering in this world.
The Bible portrays God as being both a loving, kind-hearted and good God as well as a Just Judge. He will judge each one, not just for individual sins, but to the extent that they had opportunity to repent and be saved, but chose not to.
I will try to explain it in a simple allegorical story of my own creation.
Suppose there was a kingdom and a ruler within the kingdom incited a large portion of the kingdom to rebel against the king. In this story, however, this rebellious uprising was not fleeing a tyrannical king. Instead, their new ruler was the wicked one whose purpose was not the protection of his subjects but to spite the true king because he wanted power and was led by hatred. Those within the rebellious kingdom would all be guilty of treason. The true king came against the rebellious land and decreed all of the traitors would be given the death sentence. However, because he was a good king, and really cared about the subjects, he sent messengers to go among the rebellion and spread the news that although they were guilty of treason and rebellion and were under the sentence of the death penalty, a payment had been made on their behalf. If they repented of their rebellion and accepted the provision made for them, all would be forgiven and they would be restored in relationship to the king.The story is similar to the reality that God is the true King of the universe and Satan has incited rebellion and is called the ruler of this world in John 12:31. Also, Eph 6:12 shows that this world is being run by evil spirits. “For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”
In my simple story, there was a message given that one could be pardoned because the death sentence had been executed on a substitute, in their behalf. To receive the pardon, they needed to repent of their treason and subject themselves to their true king.
In reality, however, the bible is very clear that our sentence of death for our treason/rebellion and crimes which are contrary to God’s good nature was actually fulfilled by the death of Jesus. BECAUSE Jesus was a person within the Godhead, meaning He was with God, and was God, was already present at the start of “the beginning” and all things were created by Jesus (See John 1) and because Jesus is eternal and infinite and completely all that is good, He was able to become the substitute for our death sentence. He paid an Infinite sacrifice for finite beings. The message is simply what Jesus commanded his disciples after His resurrection, “He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”
OK. That was kind of long. And I didn’t get to the proof.
There is a lot of evidence to support the Biblical message. I will only give one.
In my opinion, one of the strongest proofs is the many Old Testament passages that promised One would come to die as a substitute for people’s sins and that it is faith, a choosing to “look to Me, and be saved all you end of the earth” that transitions a person from Satan’s kingdom back to God’s kingdom.
So, here is one passage in the Old Testament was written about 700 years before Jesus. There is a surviving manuscript that has been proven by secular scholars to have existed at least 100 years before Jesus was born and the manuscript matches very closely with the translations we have today.
I hope you read the chapter carefully to examine this evidence that God gave to show all who will listen, that God Himself has provided a way for restoration to Himself, and that is through the substitutionary death of Jesus on our behalf. The Righteous for the unrighteous, laying down His life, out of love, for us.
Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
Last edited:
Here is something recently discovered that had some characteristics of land mammals and some of whales.
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/27/1031659020/four-legged-whale-legs-discovered-43-million-years
Scientists Discover Fossil Of A 4-Legged Whale With A Raptor-Like Eating Style
August 27, 202112:08 PM ET
DEEPA SHIVARAM
A group of scientists have discovered a fossil of a now-extinct whale with four legs. This visual reconstruction shows Phiomicetus anubis preying on a sawfish.
Robert W. Boessenecker
We regret to inform you that your nightmares are about to get worse.
A team led by Egyptian scientists have dug up a 43 million-year-old fossil in the Sahara Desert in Egypt of a now-extinct amphibious four-legged whale.
That's right, folks — a whale with legs.
The authors of the study say that this creature had "unique features of the skull" and that its "mandible suggest a capacity for more efficient oral mechanical processing."
ANIMALS
Scientists Are 'Spying On Whales' To Learn How They Eat, Talk And ... Walked?
In other words, these walking whales had a "strong raptorial feeding style."
"We discovered how fierce and deadly its powerful jaws are capable of tearing a wide range of prey ... this whale was a god of death to most of the animals that lived in its area," Abdullah Gohar, one of the scientists, told Insider.
The new whale is called Phiomicetus anubis, which the scientists named in part after Anubis, the canine-headed Egyptian god associated with mummification and the afterlife. It was likely a top predator at the time, similar to what a killer whale is today.
Study authors Mohamed Sameh (from left), Abdullah Gohar and Hesham Sallam surround the holotype fossils of the new whale, Phiomicetus anubis, at Mansoura University Vertebrate Paleontology center.
Abdullah Gohar
Whales, it turns out, used to be "herbivorous, deer-like terrestrial mammals," the scientists write. Over the span of about 10 million years, whales turned into carnivorous creatures in the ocean. The discovery of the four-legged creature is part of that evolution.
Article continues after sponsor message
Legs Propelled Whale Ancestor
So, a whale with legs and massive head with a vicious eating style.
Good luck sleeping tonight.
Not a lot of detail is given to how much of the fossil was recovered. Hopefully it was more than just the pitifully few fossils on the table in front of the scientists pictured in the article.Here is something recently discovered that had some characteristics of land mammals and some of whales.
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/27/1031659020/four-legged-whale-legs-discovered-43-million-years
There have been other "discoveries" of similar 4 legged whales. Here is a 2019 article written about previous discoveries. https://www.theguardian.com/science...ient-four-legged-whale-legs-hooves-discovered
HOWEVER, a critique of the 4 legged whale fossil discoveries has been written by Joseph Sarfati, Ph.D. https://creation.com/peregocetus
Here is the conclusion of the article:
Peregocetus pacificus, 43-million-year–old walking whale?
Have they finally found the missing link?
Have they finally found the missing link?
No, there are no four-legged whales. This should go without saying, by the normal meanings of words. But sadly not, with the dogma of land-mammal–to–whale evolution. This new find, Peregocetus, was certainly four-legged, and could stand and walk on land, but it was equally certainly not a whale. Furthermore, it is ‘dated’ as millions of years younger than some much more ‘whale-like’ creatures, opposite to the claimed evolutionary sequence. And there is too little time for mutations and selection to have evolved Peregocetus into something like a Basilosaurus.
A much better explanation is that God created whales fully formed, and on day 5—a day before He created land creatures, including those of the created kind comprising Peregocetus. This is one of many contradictions in the order of events between Genesis and long-age ideas.
Schematic drawings of the articulated skeleton of MUSM 3580 showing the main preserved bones, in a hypothetical swimming and terrestrial posture. Stippled lines indicate reconstructed parts and missing sections of the vertebral column Nobu Tamura, Wikimedia Commons, 2008
But it was missing a lot of crucial information as well: the skull for example, so we have no idea what its ear was like, and this is crucial for identifying putative whale ancestors. And while its tail vertebrae showed widening (“expanded transverse processes”), so it could have helped with propulsion in water, it was more like “those of beavers and otters”. There was no evidence for tail flukes as in real whales.
______________
.....Never mind that almost no one looking at such a creature would ever call it a whale.
Where are the normal diagnostic criteria for cetaceans, such as powerful swimming tail, preferably with horizontal flukes, a blow hole, obligate aquatic body design, and middle and inner ears in a cavity outside the skull not inside it as with terrestrial mammals? (See also Whale evolution?) And it had a well-developed shoulder and hip girdle attached to its spinal column, with well-developed legs. Its feet even had hooves, so it could walk on land.
__________________
Wrong place and time
It was remarkable, from an evolutionary point of view, that such a fossil could be found so far away from its closest relatives. That’s why the genus name emphasized ‘travelling’. But worse for the evolutionists is the ‘dating’. That is, according to evolutionary dating, Peregocetus is millions of years younger than creatures that are clearly more whale-like, such as Rodhocetus allegedly 4 million years older, and Remingtonocetus 5 million years older and Protocetus 2 million years older (see illustrations below).
____________________
We see the same problem with the other most-touted evolutionary transition series, dinosaur-to-bird and fish-to-tetrapod. In the former, the definite flying bird Archaeopteryx and the beaked flying bird Confuciusornis are ‘dated’ millions of years older than the ‘feathered dinosaur’ ancestor candidates. In the latter, there are undoubted tetrapod footprints millions of years older than all the supposed intermediates, including the much-touted Tiktaalik (actually, footprints in general are often found in rocks ‘millions of years’ older than any animal that could have made them).
______________________
Talking about this problem with the proclaimed dino-to-bird series, its leading evolutionary critic, paleornithologist Dr Alan Feduccia likes to say, you can’t be older than your grandfather! His opponents in particular, and evolutionists in general, when confronted by similar problems, respond that sometimes a grandfather can outlive his grandson. This is correct, but one of the major ‘evidences’ of evolution is how the evolutionary order supposedly matches the fossil sequence. So the mismatch of claimed order of appearance with claimed phylogeny undermines the evolutionary explanation.
________________
It’s nice that evolution is so flexible in that it can explain such vastly different rates, although we know of no difference in mutation rates or selective pressures.
___________________
Also, there are problems in substituting so many mutations in such a short time, as evolutionary geneticists have realized (see the discussions about Haldane’s dilemma and the waiting time problem.
https://creation.com/peregocetus
___________________
Also, there are problems in substituting so many mutations in such a short time, as evolutionary geneticists have realized (see the discussions about Haldane’s dilemma and the waiting time problem.
https://creation.com/peregocetus
- Status