Christianity and science

[Guest shiloh357]

The Bible does not claim the earth is the center of the universe. People think the Bible is "geocentric" simply because it refers to the sun moving across the sky something similar.

How 'bout the story of the sun standing still in the sky. Those who wrote this account were not aware of the difficulty such a claim would cause. This obviously is a claim made by an author who believed the sun went around the earth. When you ignore the implications you ignore the obvious.

Again, that is simply the Bible using observational language that we use all the time, even in our day. We talk about sunset and sunrise, whcih are both scientifically inaccurate terms. Even meteorologists use them in the course of their forecasts. Are we suddenly "geocentric" to? Like I said, it is hypocritical to find fault with the Bible over something like that when we use the same kind of terms in regular conversation and no one finds fault with that.

[Bowap]

Have you seen websites such as these;

http://www.geocentricity.com/

"To hear tell, geocentrism, the ancient doctrine that the earth is fixed motionless at the center of the universe, died over four centuries ago. At that time Nicolaus Copernicus (picture below), a Polish canon who dabbled in astrology, claimed that the sun and not the earth was at the center of the universe. His idea is known as heliocentrism. It took a hundred years for heliocentrism to become the dominant opinion, and it did so with a complete lack of evidence in its favor.

Copernicus Yet the victory of heliocentrism has been less than total. Over the years geocentrism has had its spokesmen. Among scientists who adhered to the centrality of the earth were three generations of Cassinis: a family of astronomers who dominated French astronomy from the late seventeenth to the early nineteenth centuries. Astronomers, pastors, and educators in the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church maintained the geocentric truths well into the twentieth century. They, with the reformers such as Luther, saw that the embracing of heliocentrism would weaken not only science, but also the authority of the Bible.

The second of these two concerns: how the Bible's authority is weakened by heliocentrism; stems from the firm manner in which the Bible teaches geocentricity. Geocentric verses range from those with only a positional import, such as references to "up" and "down;" through the question of just what the earth was "orbiting" the first three days while it awaited the creation of the sun; to overt references such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5:

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Perhaps the strongest geocentric verse in the Bible is Joshua 10:13:

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. "

Or http://www.fixedearth.com/

"The Bible and all real evidence confirms that this is precisely what He did, and indeed: The Earth is not rotating...nor is it going around the sun. The universe is not one ten trillionth the size we are told. Today’s cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as "science". The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie. Those lies have planted the Truth-killing virus of evolutionism in every aspect of man’s "knowledge" about the Universe, the Earth, and Himself."

http://sites.google.com/site/earthdeception/

"The Earth is NOT Moving!!

The Sun, Moon and Stars are going around a stationary Earth just as observed and just as the Bible says,

(Sun 24hrs...... Moon 24hrs 50min 28sec...... Stars 23hrs 56min 4sec...... all east-to-west)."

These people (at least one of whom has a PhD in astronomy) are adamant that the Bible teaches a fixed, immovable earth, and that conceding to 'secular' astronomy and heliocentrism is damaging to the inerrancy of Scripture.

It's spoken about here in Lesson 6: Does the Earth Move? - http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/vid...ucation-page-2/

Edited May 22, 2009 by Bowap

[Bowap]

Could you give examples of three distorted views that some Creation Scientists promote....I might even agree with you?

There is so much misinformation that emanates entirely from creationist sources, I'll list some just some regarding evolution. If you've ever heard these statments you'll have heard them from creationists and they are factually inaccurate.

- There is serious debate going in within the scientific community about whether evolution has occurred/ evolution is a 'theory in crisis'/ it is being abandoned by scientists. (Former YEC Glenn Morton has an article on this - The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism - http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html)

- All mutations are bad/ there are no beneficial mutations.

- There is no mechanism to add 'new genetic information' to the genome.

- Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

- All developmental / embryological evidence for evolution has been show to be false. (Ernst Haeckel did overemphasize similarities between vertebrate embryos and his idea that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' was false. However, this does not mean that embryology does not provide testable hypotheses and evidence for common descent. Darwin didn't base his ideas about embryology on those from Haeckel and modern scientific studies in this area are not based on them either, they haven't been for an awfully long time)

- There are no transitional fossils.

- Modern experts agree that 'Lucy' was a chimpanzee. (Talkorigins has dedicated a whole series of articles to simply dealing with out of context quote-mining and other misleading ideas that have been spread about the hominid fossil record. Not to mention the rest of the record.)

- 'Macroevolution' has never been observed/ all that we have ever observed is 'variation within a species'. (The only scientific definition of 'macroevolution' is evolutionary change at, or above, the species level. Any other definition about 'kinds' or 'large scales' is arbitrary, and is no longer a defintion of 'macroevolution', it is something else)

- Pretty much everything creationists say about 'junk' (or non-coding) DNA. (Steve Matheson, Professor of Biology at Calvin College, has a series of articles about this;

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2007/12/tal...t-junk-dna.html

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/01/tal...lies-about.html

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/02/tal...s-about_21.html

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/03/hug...fairy-tale.html )

These are just some basic points to do with evolution, there are many others related to evolution, and more relating to other scientific topics such as;

Abiogenesis

- The 'law of biogenesis' says that it is impossible for the first life to develop on the early earth from simpler molecules / Pasteur proved that abiogenesis was impossible. (All he and others demonstrated was that modern organisms don't pop into being out of thin air. There is absolutely nothing anywhere in science that says very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules)

Geology

- Radiometric dating is unreliable. (Pretty much all of their claims, including examples of bad dates are either totally out of context, or outright false information. No matter how many articles YEC websites want to write on this it isn't going to convince the huge number of scientists who use these techniques and know that, despite their limitations, they are overall very reliable. See Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective - http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html)

- The geologic column does not exist/ only exists in textbooks.

Astronomy/ cosmology

- The Big Bang or models for solar system formation are somehow in conflict with the conservation of angular momentum.

- The Big Bang was an explosion and explosions don't produce order.

Then we have other general stuff such as:

- Darwin recanted on his deathbed.

- A theory means something is 'unproven' or uncertain, and is in some sense a 'lower' scientific construct than a law or a fact. (Theories, facts, and laws are all different things, one does not graduate to another as scientists accumulate more evidence and become more confident about them)

These are just some standard pieces of misinformation and I haven't even touched on areas such as the proposed evidence for a young earth.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Bowap

[Guest shiloh357]

The second of these two concerns: how the Bible's authority is weakened by heliocentrism; stems from the firm manner in which the Bible teaches geocentricity. Geocentric verses range from those with only a positional import, such as references to "up" and "down;" through the question of just what the earth was "orbiting" the first three days while it awaited the creation of the sun; to overt references such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5:

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Perhaps the strongest geocentric verse in the Bible is Joshua 10:13:

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. "

That is not "geocentric." Again, the Bible is not making a scientific statement, but an observational one. I would AGAIN point out that we use such terminology as "sunset, " "sunrise" in normal, everyday conversation. We also regularly refer to the sun going down and coming up.

The Bible makes no "geocentric" claims relative to the earth and the sun. The Bible never claims that the universe revolves around the earth and/or that the earth is the center of universe or any other such claims.

These people (at least one of whom has a PhD in astronomy) are adamant that the Bible teaches a fixed, immovable earth, and that conceding to 'secular' astronomy and heliocentrism is damaging to the inerrancy of Scripture.

You are trying prove a point using extremists, people who do not represent the mainstream Christianity. You are trying to prove that the Bible is geocentric by finding someone else who makes the claim as if that somehow proves the Bible is geocentric.

Tell you what. Hitler believed in Evolution and today, many in the Aryan movement and other racist organizations of similar ilk feel that all nonwhite races are inferior and that "natural selection" demands that the physically and mentally superior white race eradicate the earth of sub-human, inferior, mentally weaker nonwhite races including Africans, hispanics, SE Asians, Native Americans, etc.

Should I base my views of Evolution on extremists' claims that "natural selection" gives them the right to believe as they do, and the commit atrocities against other people? Would that be an acceptable approach to Evolution in your view?

[Guest shiloh357]

We don't talk about the sun standing still for hours.

Irrelevant. It is still the same type of observational language.

Such an event would require that the earth intantly stop rotating. Those who wrote that story thought only that the sun need be stopped in its motion. This is evidence they thought the sun was a small object being moved across the sky by God.

No it is not evidence of that. You are trying to assign values to the text that are not there.

Once again, the Bible is not trying to make a scientific statement, so it is unfair for you to assign scientific values to the text.

QUOTE

Even meteorologists use them in the course of their forecasts.

They absolutely do not! No meteoroglist has ever said and the sun stopped in its motion across the sky. I notice you even avoided repeating those words.

(sigh) Hitchey, go back and read what I said... I was referring to meteoroligists using the terms sunrise and sunset.

QUOTE

Like I said, it is hypocritical to find fault with the Bible over something like that when we use the same kind of terms in regular conversation and no one finds fault with that.

We never say in our everyday speech that the sun stopped moving across the sky.

The point is that we generally use the same type of verbiage, when people talk about working from "sun up to "sun down" or talk about sitting on the beach and watching the sunset or watching the sun "dip" below the horizon. Those very common in every day, modern vernacular and are similar in type and spirit to the Bible's reference to the sun moving or stopping in the sky.

[Botz]

There is so much misinformation that emanates entirely from creationist sources, I'll list some just some regarding evolution. If you've ever heard these statments you'll have heard them from creationists and they are factually inaccurate.

- There is serious debate going in within the scientific community about whether evolution has occurred/ evolution is a 'theory in crisis'/ it is being abandoned by scientists. (Former YEC Glenn Morton has an article on this - The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism - http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html)

I will just reply to a couple of things...some I personally agree with, others I would struggle with.

I don't have too much of a problem with the above statement...I think some of the Creationist sites have wrongly promoted this idea, probably on the flimsy basis of a few evolutionists doing some honest questioning, and one or two joining the ranks of the Creationists.

-

All mutations are bad/ there are no beneficial mutations.

I would have thought this is generally true, and at the very least what has been observed is that the vast majority of mutations are unhelpful, and do not assign any lasting benefits, and do not compliment what already exists. Mutation together with vast immeasurable quantities of time are pivotal criteria that are used to promote the viability of evolution of species, and from what I have observed the mutations are wildly speculative, and the time-scale is in many ways a red-herring, because one cannot possibly get a handle on such vast amounts of time, during which it could be argued almost anything could have happened.

- There is no mechanism to add 'new genetic information' to the genome.

I'm unsure of this...I would have thought it possible to a very limited degree.

- Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

Well I have always thought this to be the case...unless of course the second law of thermodynamics and entropy is revised, which I believe has now happened.

- There are no transitional fossils.

Well maybe none that are non-contoversial and totally convincing....everything I have seen always gives the impression of clutching at straws, or has been wrongly assigned. Highly imaginative and scientifically speculative in many instances.

Then we have other general stuff such as:

- Darwin recanted on his deathbed.

I agree that this statement has been poorly promoted in an effort to discredit Darwin. Just as I would agree that some Creationist sites, particularly those that have their roots in the deep South, jump on anything with which to slag off Darwinism, and do not do themselves or other Christians any favours.

- A theory means something is 'unproven' or uncertain, and is in some sense a 'lower' scientific construct than a law or a fact. (Theories, facts, and laws are all different things, one does not graduate to another as scientists accumulate more evidence and become more confident about them)

I think the very nature of science means that whatever scientific statements are made there is always room for future knowledge to elaborate, correct or revise what has gone on before, and when a hypothesis evolves into a theory that is widely accepted by the scientific community, it becomes the established norm...until sufficiently challenged by someone with better evidence...I think all scientists whether Creationist, Evolutionist or other work to this understanding.

I would be interested if you could explain what a Christian is to do with Genesis, if he accepts the premise that we developed from a warm pool over millions of years to ape-like hominids and now homo-sapiens...how does your biologist friend join the dots, and how would you presume to accomplish this strange balancing act and retain biblical integrity?

These are just some standard pieces of misinformation and I haven't even touched on areas such as the proposed evidence for a young earth.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (Hitchey)

We don't talk about the sun standing still for hours.

QUOTE (shiloh357)

Irrelevant. It is still the same type of observational language.

How do you figure that? This is an astronomical event that took place within a story and it is integral to the story line. It is thought by the author of Joshua 10 to have actually happened. Note that the Bible says: "And there has been no day like that, before it or after it...."

Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel: Sun, stand still over Gibeon; and Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the people had revenge upon their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hastened to go down for about a whole day. And there has been no day like that, before it or after it.... (Joshua 10:12-14)

It is irrelevant because I am simply pointing out that from a observational standpoint, from the standpoint of a person standing on the earth, it would appear the sun stopped. Again, it is no different than the other kinds observational language we use to day, which is of similar ilk. We speak of the sun going up and coming down of sunrise and sunset in every day conversation.

It seems obvious to me that if the sun stopped in its motion the only explanation could be that the Earth stopped rotating. How do you figure it otherwise?

I am not figuring it otherwise. Are you trying to obtuse? I am not arguing against heliocentrism. You are trying refute arguments I have not raised.

QUOTE (shiloh357)

Once again, the Bible is not trying to make a scientific statement, so it is unfair for you to assign scientific values to the text.

Now you surprise me. I thought you would be arguing that the sun did stand still. That it was a miracle of God. Instead you argue that Joshua 10 does not actually mean what it says? Do you believe this event happened or not?

The event happened. And yes the earth stopped or at least slowed down very, very slow. Again, the fact that the Bible is simply speaking in nontechnical, observational language has nothing to do with whether the event happened or not. What you are wanting me to do is to apply a hyper-literal interpretation to the story so that you have something to knock down. I believe the event happened. The problem is that you are busy trying apply values to the text that are not there. For someone so hung up being scienticially accurate, you really show a poor degree of skill where literary analysis is concerned.

QUOTE (shiloh357)

The point is that we generally use the same type of verbiage, when people talk about working from "sun up to "sun down" or talk about sitting on the beach and watching the sunset or watching the sun "dip" below the horizon. Those very common in every day, modern vernacular and are similar in type and spirit to the Bible's reference to the sun moving or stopping in the sky.

You make me smile Shiloh. You recognize the difficulty this story creates and so you argue that the Bible does not mean what it says in order to by pass the difficulty.

No, I am simply demonstrating the high degree hypocrisy and intellectual suicide you are willing to employ in order to avoid the obvious fact that we use nonscientific and in fact, scientifically inaccurate terminology, all of the time in our modern vernacular. You are trying to find fault with the Bible using same type of terminology while ignoring the fact that we use it today and no one is calling us "geocentric" for using it.

The Bible uses all kinds of literary devices and modes of communication. You are tyring to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist. Jesus said in the book of John, "I am the door." Does that mean that Jesus was a piece of wood with a handle and hinges? Does the fact that Jesus is not a piece of wood with hinges suddenly mean the Bible doesn't mean what it says?

Again, the Bible makes no geocentric claims. If it did, you might have something to argue against. The Bible was written to the common man and it uses language and terminology that the simplest person can understand.

[Bowap]

There is so much misinformation that emanates entirely from creationist sources, I'll list some just some regarding evolution. If you've ever heard these statments you'll have heard them from creationists and they are factually inaccurate.

- There is serious debate going in within the scientific community about whether evolution has occurred/ evolution is a 'theory in crisis'/ it is being abandoned by scientists. (Former YEC Glenn Morton has an article on this - The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism - http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html)

I don't have too much of a problem with the above statement...I think some of the Creationist sites have wrongly promoted this idea, probably on the flimsy basis of a few evolutionists doing some honest questioning, and one or two joining the ranks of the Creationists.

The thing is that scientists do have serious debates about the rates and patterns of evolutionary change, how important natural selection is or genetic drift, and how organisms are related but there is no scientific debate going on about whether or not evolution has actually occurred. Scientists already think there is so much evidence in favour of it, and has been for a long time now, they regard the proposition that 'living organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors' as established beyond any reasonable doubt. No scientist is going to publish an article saying "yet more evidence for evolution," it would be like NASA announcing a press conference to confirm that the earth is still round, or things are still falling down.

Here are some statements from scientists and scientific organisations;

http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/...20statement.pdf

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/170900...int/1709901.pdf

http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve

All mutations are bad/ there are no beneficial mutations.

I would have thought this is generally true, and at the very least what has been observed is that the vast majority of mutations are unhelpful, and do not assign any lasting benefits, and do not compliment what already exists. Mutation together with vast immeasurable quantities of time are pivotal criteria that are used to promote the viability of evolution of species, and from what I have observed the mutations are wildly speculative, and the time-scale is in many ways a red-herring, because one cannot possibly get a handle on such vast amounts of time, during which it could be argued almost anything could have happened.

It is a fact that the majority of mutations are neutral, that is they confer neither an advantage nor a disadvantage to the organism possessing them. Now, whether a non-neutral mutation is positive or negative depends on a whole series of factors, such as what the organism is, where it is living, what the conditions are as well as various other factors. With regard to such mutations, the proportion which are harmful is usually higher than those that are beneficial, although not by as large a margin as is often suggested. However, there do undoubtedly exist mutations which confer a survival advantage to those organisms possessing them and so are beneficial, known examples would be; antibiotic resistance, those that provide resistance to diseases or illnesses, those that increase bone strength, those providing bacteria with the ability to degrade nylon, those leading to bacteria developing the ability to utilize citrate as a source of energy.

There is no mechanism to add 'new genetic information' to the genome.

I'm unsure of this...I would have thought it possible to a very limited degree.

There are various mechanisms for this; gene duplication, recombination, insertional mutations, transposition, and translocation, all of which can and do produce new genetic information. There are also point mutations which impart new functions.

If you want to look at this from the point of information theory, go here - http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/01/test-...nformation.html .

Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

Well I have always thought this to be the case...unless of course the second law of thermodynamics and entropy is revised, which I believe has now happened.

There has never been any contradiction between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics, only misleading claims made by people who clearly understood neither.

Here are just two links explaining with this objection to evolution is unfounded;

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11...d_evolution.php

http://www.swarmagents.cn/thesis/doc/jake_230.pdf

There are no transitional fossils.

Well maybe none that are non-contoversial and totally convincing....everything I have seen always gives the impression of clutching at straws, or has been wrongly assigned. Highly imaginative and scientifically speculative in many instances.

There are many fossils that are established by paleontologists as definitely transitional, scientists are finding more all the time, they are almost tripping over the things. Creationist websites can write all the 'rebuttals' to them that they want but it won't change the fact that they are transitional, the people on the these websites have not worked in the field of paleontology, have not even seen the fossils and so do not have the expertise to dismiss the work of scientists who are trained in the field and have actually worked with the fossils.

Examples of transitionals would be;

Primitive chordates to vertebrates; Acorn 'worm', Amphioxus. Pikaia, Haikouella, Myllokunmingia, Haikoichthys, Conodonts, Arandaspis, Birkenia.

Evolution of sharks; Acanthodian, Tristychius, Cladoselache, Stethacanthus, Falcatus, Xenacanthus, Ctenacanthus, Hybodont, Paleospinax, Protospinax.

Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish) to tetrapods; Osteolepis, Coelacanth, Lungfish, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Elginerpeton, Obruchevichthys, Ventastega, Metaxygnathus, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Icthyostega, Hynerpeton, Greererpeton, Tulerpeton, Pederpes, Eryops.

Amphibians to amniotes (primitive reptiles); Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Solenodonsaurus, Bruktererpeton, Seymouria, Limnoscelis, Diadectes, Westlothiana, Hylnomus, Paleothyris.

Evolution of marine reptiles:

Ichthyosaurs; Nanchangosaurus, Utatsusaurus, Grippia, Chaohusaurus, Cymbospondylus, Mixosaurus, Californosaurus, Opthalmosaurus.

Plesiosaurs; Cladiosaurus, Pachypleurosaurus, Pistosaurus, Cryptocleidus, Hydrothecrosaurus.

Mosasaurs; Varanus, Aigialosaurus, Opetiosaurus, Dallasaurus, Clidastes, Globidens, Prognathodon, Plesiotylosaurus.

Evolution of snakes (snake fossils with not only hind limbs but also fully functional hip bones); Eupodophis, Pachyrhachis, Haasiophis, Najash rionegrina, Adriosaurus michrobrachis.

Evolution of crocodiles; Gracilisuchus, Terrestrisuchus, Protosuchus, Geosaurus, Steneosaurus, Baurusuchus.

Dinosaurs:

Evolution of sauropods; Lagosuchus, Anchisaurus, Herrerasaurus, Massopondylus, Plateosaurus, Melanosaurus, Cetiosaurus, Camarasaurus, Brachiosaurus, Titanosaurus, Diplodocus, Dicraeosaurus.

Evolution of therapods; Euparkeria, Compsognathus, Eoraptor, Staurikosaurus, Coelophysis.

Evolution of Ornithischia; Lesothosaurus, Fabrosaurus, Heterodontosaurus,

Evolution of Certaopsia; Psittacosaurus, Graciliceratops, Archaeoceratops, Bagaceratops, Protoceratops, Leptoceratops, Zuniceratops, Pachyrhinosaurus, Styracosaurus, Centrosaurus, Monoclonius, Chasmosaurus, Anchiceratops, Arrhinoceratops, Pentaceratops, Torosaurus, Triceratops .

Evolution of birds; Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Caudipteryx, Oviraptor, Troodon, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Dromaeosaurus, Archaeopteryx, Meilong, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Iberomesornis, Sinornis, Gobipteryx, Enantiornis, Vorona, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Icthyornis.

Synapsids (mammal-like reptiles) to mammals; Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Eotitanosuchus, Lycaenoas, Lychosuchus, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Thrinaxadon, Cynonathus, Chiniquodon, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathius, Exaeretodon, Kayentatherium, Diarthrognathus, Sinoconodon, Eozostrodon, Yanoconodon, Megazostrodon, Morganucodon.

Mammals:

Evolution of dogs; Cynodictis, Hesperocyon, Mesocyon, Ectopocynus, Osbornodon, Otarocyon, Cynarctoides, Phlaocyon, Cormocyon, Desmocyon, Cynarctus, Tomarctus, Aelurodon, Paratomarctus, Carpocyon, Eipcyon, Osteoborus, Borophagus, Leptocyon, Eucyon.

Evolution of cats; Viverravidae, Homotherium, Proailurus, Pseudaelurus, Miracinonyx, Acinonyx.

Evolution of the walrus; Proneotherium, Aivukus, Pontolis, Gomphotaria, Dusignathus, Alachtherium, Valenictus.

Evolution of the horse; Protorohippus, Orohippus, Happlohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Protohippus, Callipus Astrohippus, Pliohippus, Dinohippus, Equus.

Evolution of bears; Ursavus elmensis, Protursus simpsoni, Ursus minimus, Ursus etruscus, Ursus savini, U. spelaeus, U. arctos, U. maritimus.

Evolution of seals; Pachycynodon, Puijila darwini, Enaliarctos, Leptophoca, Montherium.

Evolution of rhinos; Hyrachyus, Uintaceras, Trigonias, Penetrigonias, Subhyracodon, Woodoceras, Skinnerceras, Diceratherium, Gulfoceras, Menoceras, Teloceras.

Evolution of rodents; Anagale, Barunlestes, Heomys, Tribosphenomys minutus, Acritoparamys atavus, Paramys.

Evolution of tapirs; Homogalax, Heptodon, Helaletes, Colodon, Protapirus, Miotapirus, Tapirus terrestris, Tapiris indicus, Tapirus.

Evolution of camels; Poebrodon, Poebrotherium, Stenomylus, Floridatragulus, Oxydactylus, Procamelus, Camelops.

Evolution of giraffes; Paleoryx, Canthumeryx, Giraffokeryx, Samotherium, Palaeotragus, Bohlinia, Hunanotherium.

Evolution of whales; Indohyus, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Maiacetus, Rodhocetus, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, Mysticetes, Odontocetes.

Evolution of elephants; Phenacolophus, Pilgrimella, Phosphatherium, Moeritherium, Barytherium, Numidotherium, Palaeomastodon, Gomptherium, Stegodon, Tetralophodon, Stegotetrabelodon.

Evolution of sirenians; Prorastomus, Pezosiren, Prothotherium, Eosiren.

Evolution of humans; Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus gahri, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo mauritanicus, Homo heidelbergensis.

A theory means something is 'unproven' or uncertain, and is in some sense a 'lower' scientific construct than a law or a fact. (Theories, facts, and laws are all different things, one does not graduate to another as scientists accumulate more evidence and become more confident about them)

I think the very nature of science means that whatever scientific statements are made there is always room for future knowledge to elaborate, correct or revise what has gone on before, and when a hypothesis evolves into a theory that is widely accepted by the scientific community, it becomes the established norm...until sufficiently challenged by someone with better evidence...I think all scientists whether Creationist, Evolutionist or other work to this understanding.

You are correct but how many have we heard people say "evolution is 'only'/'just' a theory?" As if it just meant random, unsubstantiated speculation. There is no higher scientific level than theory. A scientific theory is a well-supported explanation of some natural phenomenon, that is testable, makes predictions, is falsifiable, and has broad explanatory power. A theory is very unlikely to simply be overthrown by a single fact. Theories may contain with in them laws, facts, or hypotheses. (But no matter how much they are tested and confirmed the theories will never themselves become facts or laws. No matter how much cell theory or atomic theory are shown to be accurate descriptions of reality, professors aren't going to start teaching their students classes in cell 'fact' or atomic 'law')

A fact is a piece of data, an observation, or something that scientists simply accept as true and require no more evidence in favour of it.

Evolution, as one particular scientific theory, has been tested by the finest scientific minds for a century and a half, and not only have scientists found nothing contradicting its basic tenets, but they have discovered what they consider to be overwhelming evidence in support of it.

Here's an article from the National Academy of Sciences - http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

I would be interested if you could explain what a Christian is to do with Genesis, if he accepts the premise that we developed from a warm pool over millions of years to ape-like hominids and now homo-sapiens...how does your biologist friend join the dots, and how would you presume to accomplish this strange balancing act and retain biblical integrity?

This is what this 'Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution' partly attempts to deal with. If you looked at around page 19 or so onwards, this issue is addressed.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Bowap

[Botz]

There are many fossils that are established by paleontologists as definitely transitional, scientists are finding more all the time, they are almost tripping over the things. Creationist websites can write all the 'rebuttals' to them that they want but it won't change the fact that they are transitional, the people on the these websites have not worked in the field of paleontology, have not even seen the fossils and so do not have the expertise to dismiss the work of scientists who are trained in the field and have actually worked with the fossils.

Examples of transitionals would be;......

Evolution of humans; Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus gahri, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo mauritanicus, Homo heidelbergensis.

That's a good reply Bowap...I will take some of what you have laid out and try and comment on the relevant details.

It is a fact that the majority of mutations are neutral, that is they confer neither an advantage nor a disadvantage to the organism possessing them. Now, whether a non-neutral mutation is positive or negative depends on a whole series of factors, such as what the organism is, where it is living, what the conditions are as well as various other factors. With regard to such mutations, the proportion which are harmful is usually higher than those that are beneficial, although not by as large a margin as is often suggested. However, there do undoubtedly exist mutations which confer a survival advantage to those organisms possessing them and so are beneficial, known examples would be; antibiotic resistance, those that provide resistance to diseases or illnesses, those that increase bone strength, those providing bacteria with the ability to degrade nylon, those leading to bacteria developing the ability to utilize citrate as a source of energy

But the whole point is that the Theory of Evolution depends entirely upon haphazard multitudes of beneficial mutations over vast periods of time in every case...it is the only explanation that possible makes sense....from my understanding, every single life-form evolved through this process...which is simply not consistant with what we know about the overall effects of mutation, and its contribution to the gene pool. Citing a few examples of the occassional beneficial element does not come near to explaining how every living thing has always relied on this progressive modification and general improvement.

Evolution of humans; Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus gahri, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo mauritanicus, Homo heidelbergensis.

Ok let's have a look at each of these in turn which I will take from non-Creationist sites, and we will see if just presenting this so-called list of evolution of humans actually exists, is totally convincing and widely accepted. For the sake of brevity I have just quoted the necessary details that show enough information to cast serious doubt on the apparent progression of human evolution that you provided (the doubt eminates from the experts)....and which also shows that there is not a uniform agreement about these things as some would have us believe......

1. Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Sahelanthropus may represent a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees; though most scientists disagree. Evidence supports the fact that S.tchadensis did in fact walk upright, though no-one can be positive. The original placement of this species as a human ancestor but not a chimpanzee ancestor would complicate the picture of human phylogeny........Furthermore, S. tchadensis does indicate that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees is unlikely to resemble chimpanzees very much, as had been previously supposed by some paleontologists......Unfortunately, the exact age of the fossil is somewhat hard to determine.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis

2. Australopithecus anamensis

This species was named in August 1995 (Leakey et al. 1995). The material consists of 9 fossils, mostly found in 1994, from Kanapoi in Kenya, and 12 fossils, mostly teeth found in 1988, from Allia Bay in Kenya (Leakey et al. 1995). Anamensis existed between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago, and has a mixture of primitive features in the skull, and advanced features in the body. The teeth and jaws are very similar to those of older fossil apes. A partial tibia (the larger of the two lower leg bones) is strong evidence of bipedality, and a lower humerus (the upper arm bone) is extremely humanlike. Note that although the skull and skeletal bones are thought to be from the same species, this is not confirmed.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

3. Australopithecus afarensis

Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct hominid which lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago. In common with the younger Australopithecus africanus, A. afarensis was slenderly built. From analysis it has been thought that A. afarensis was ancestral to both the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo, which includes the modern human species, Homo sapiens......However, in 2006 scientists Yoel Rak, Avishag Ginzburg, and Eli Geffen carried out a morphological analysis which found that the mandibular ramus (jawbone) of australopithecus afarensis specimen A. L. 822-1 discovered in 2002 is robust , and from further studies they concluded that "australopithecus afarensis" is more likely an ancestor of only the robust australopithecines branch of the hominid evolutionary tree, and not an ancestor of the Australopithecus africanus branch, so not a direct ancestor of man. They concluded that Ardipithecus ramidus discovered by White and colleagues in the 1990s is a more likely ancestor of the human clade.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

4. Australopithecus garhi

Australopithecus garhi is a gracile australopithecine species whose fossils were discovered in 1996 by a research team led by Ethiopian paleontologist Berhane Asfaw and Tim White, an American paleontologist. The hominin remains were initially believed to be a human ancestor species and the final missing link between the Australopithecus genus and the human genus, Homo. However it is now believed that A. garhi, although more advanced than any other australopithecine, was only a competitor species to the species ancestral to Homo and therefore not a human ancestor.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_garhi

5. Australopithecus africanus

The species of Australopithecus africanus was named in a February, 1925, issue of Nature by Raymond Dart. Dart was one of the pioneers of paleoanthropology, and created quite a furor over naming the fossil specimen (the Taung Child skull and endocast) a hominid. The standard line at the time by some of the powerful figures in the field (e.g., A. Keith and O. Abel) was that the ancestors of humans should be found in Europe, and should have an enlarged brain and an apelike jaw (as was the case in the Piltdown Man hoax). The claim that the specimen was a hominid was rejected by those who saw the material as that of a young chimpanzee or gorilla. This view was not helped by the difficulty in acquiring casts. The material was distant from many in the field (few of which ever traveled to actually view the material), and most importantly, was that of a juvenile. Juveniles are often misrepresentative of adult states, and most researchers claimed that the Taung Child would have developed into a chimpanzee or gorilla ancestor.

Due to the hostile or indifferent response of his peers, Dart never followed up the find with further excavations, and no other specimens of the species have been found at Taung. Dart dedicated himself to developing the anatomy department at the University of Witwatersrand, and it would be twenty years later when sites like Sterkfontein were found that corroborated Darts ideas.....Conclusions

The africanus material is seen as different things by different people. Some see this as a regional variation or subspecies of afarensis, some see it as two completely different species, and some consider the africanus material to be the descendants of afarensis. Another important question that has been, is, and will probably always be debated is the question of whether the africanus material represents two or more species, a sexually dimorphic species, or a very variable species (especially with regards to inter-era speculation). The accepted view seems to be that they deserve separate species status due to both their differences from the afarensis material and their geographic separation from them. However, a very important question in debate is whether or not this species contributed to the modern human lineage. http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecusafricanus.htm

6. Homo habilis

Homo habilis has often been thought to be the ancestor of the lankier and more sophisticated Homo ergaster, which in turn gave rise to the more human-appearing species, Homo erectus. Debates continue over whether H. habilis is a direct human ancestor, and whether all of the known fossils are properly attributed to the species. However, in 2007, new findings suggest that the two species coexisted and may be separate lineages from a common ancestor instead of H. erectus being descended from H. habilis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

7. Homo ergaster

Homo ergaster is one of the more problematic of somewhat accepted species designations currently tossed around in anthropological literature. Each individual researcher that sees ergaster as a valid taxon sees different specimens as belonging or not belonging to the taxon. Many researchers deny any validity to the species at all. On the whole though, most researchers see too little difference between ergaster and erectus to form the basis of a species of the former, separated from the latter. As a general rule of thumb, one can consider most attributed ergaster specimens to be early erectus geographically confined to Africa (however, this is not a hard and fast rule)....... Conclusions

In short, H. ergaster does not show significant promise of lasting as a separate taxon due to several factors. It has not been shown to be significantly different from erectus to require the designation of a new hominid species, and it has not been shown to be closer to modern humans morphologically as has been claimed by some. At this time, ergaster basically means early H. erectus from Africa. http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoergaster.htm

8. Homo erectusDutch anatomist Eugene Dubois had been fascinated with Charles Darwin's theories of evolution, so set out to find an early human (1890s). He first described the species as Pithecanthropus erectus ("upright ape-man"), based on a calotte (skullcap) and a modern-looking femur found from the bank of the Solo River at Trinil, in East Java. (This species is now regarded as Homo erectus.) His find is commonly referred to as Java Man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus................

The dates for erectus have become earlier and earlier, while habilis remains have been found in later and later deposits, making a lineage involving habilis ancestral to erectus increasingly unlikely. Specimens that are considered erectus are dated very securely to at least 1.8 myr, and fairly securely to 1.9 myr. The question of this species' evolutionary destiny is under some disagreement. Those who accept the validity of ergaster usually consider erectus an evolutionary dead-end that went from Africa into Asia, and went extinct there. Those who see erectus as a modern human ancestor, either see the Asian specimens as a dead-end side branch, or see all the ergaster, heidelbergensis, and erectus specimens as belonging to Homo sapiens.http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoerectus.htm

9. Homo mauritanicus

{There is not enough conclusive evidence about this potential link yet}

10 Homo heidelbergensis

Homo heidelbergensis ("Heidelberg Man") is an extinct species of the genus Homo which may be the direct ancestor of Homo neanderthalensis in Europe. The best evidence found for these hominin date between 600,000 and 400,000 years ago. H. heidelbergensis stone tool technology was considerably close to that of the Acheulean tools used by Homo erectus......

Some believe that H. heidelbergensis is an extinct species, and some that it is a cladistic ancestor to other Homo forms sometimes improperly linked to distinct species in terms of populational genetics.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis

I would be interested if you could explain what a Christian is to do with Genesis, if he accepts the premise that we developed from a warm pool over millions of years to ape-like hominids and now homo-sapiens...how does your biologist friend join the dots, and how would you presume to accomplish this strange balancing act and retain biblical integrity?

This is what this 'Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution' partly attempts to deal with. If you looked at around page 19 or so onwards, this issue is addressed.

I have searched and searched for this but cannot find it, and would like to read it, could you place the link up again please...also I would be interested to hear what YOU think, and how YOU resolve the obvious difficulties....Not of the age of the earth, as I think there is room in the Genesis account for the actual earth to have been created but unformed eons ago...but for example human descent from Adam and Eve, especially when the text does not fit the allegorical, and all biblical geneologies consistantly stem from them.

I would add that the majority of the public just believe what the men in white coats tell them, simply because they cannot unravel the vast and conflicting amounts of information that are thrown their way...much of the terminology might just as well be in runic. There is a dividing line between understanding how electricity works, and promoting the theory that we evolved, especially when that Theory has had such deep repercussions and challenged the foundation of Biblical writings and ultimately caused so many to ship-wreck thier faith as they struggle to come to terms with what is placed before them as reality and what is challenged as myth.

Some of the ways in which Creationists have tried to re-address the balance could have been done better in some instances...but at least they are trying to show from as scientific position as possible, that good science is not the weapon of the Atheist, but a friend of the Truth.

[Guest shiloh357]

This is what this 'Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution' partly attempts to deal with. If you looked at around page 19 or so onwards, this issue is addressed.

I looked this up and found it. While there is too much information to refute line by line, I will address the more significant problems with the author's position.

Though many Evangelicals claim that they hold a