Posted on 03/04/2009 7:16:11 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
“Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false,” according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.1 But do these examples really confirm Darwinism?
Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2 Later in this chapter of his landmark book, he expressed hope that future discoveries would be made of transitional forms, or of creatures that showed some transitional structure—perhaps a half-scale/half-feather.
Although some creationists do say that “there are no transitional fossils,” it would be more accurate to state that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Although the article asserts that the fossil record “is full of them,” the reality is that it does not contain a single universally accepted transitional form. Every transitional fossil candidate has both proponents and doubters even among evolutionary “biologists and paleontologists.”
The first supposed transitional form offered in the report is Sahelanthropus. This 2001 discovery was first hailed as a transitional form in the ape-to-human line, but controversy over its transitional status immediately ensued. Brigitte Senut of the Natural History Museum in Paris was skeptical, saying that its skull features, “especially the [canine teeth],”3 were characteristic of female gorillas, not human-like gorillas. Senut and her colleagues also disputed that Sahelanthropus was even in the ancestry of humans at all: “To represent a valid clade, hominids must share unique defining features, and Sahelanthropus does not appear to have been an obligate biped [creature that walked on two feet].”4 In other words, Sahelanthropus is at best a highly disputed fossil of an extinct ape, having no clear transitional features.
LiveScience also listed a medium-neck-length fossil giraffe named Bohlinia and the “walking manatee” as transitional forms. However, Bohlinia is just variation within what is still clearly the giraffe kind and doesn’t answer the question, “Where did the giraffe kind come from?” Such variations within kinds do not refute the creation concept, but rather are predicted by it.5 And the “walking manatee” walked because it had fully formed, ready-to-walk legs, hips, nerves, and musculature. The article does not mention that this particular fossil is shown elsewhere to be a dead-end species, “transitioning” to nothing, according to evolutionists.6
The LiveScience article, borrowing from geologist Donald Prothero, also claimed that Moeritherium is “the ultimate transitional fossil,” the ancestor of elephants. This was an amphibious mammal, shaped like a hippo, with a mobile, muscular lip fused with its nostril. But it had none of the real characteristics of an elephant—not the trunk, size, tusks, nor the specialized weight-bearing knee joint structure.7
The “classic fossil of Archaeopteryx” is not a transitional form either, but was fully bird. Its “reptile-like” teeth and wing claws are found in some birds today.8 Many reptiles have no teeth, but nobody claims that they evolved from birds. And the discovery of a “frog-amander” has yet to be agreed upon as transitional by evolutionists. John Bolt, a curator at the Field Museum in Chicago, told National Geographic that “it is difficult to say for sure whether this creature was itself a common ancestor of the two modern groups, given that there is only one known specimen of Gerobatrachus, and an incomplete one at that.”9
Other extinct creatures had “shared features,” physical structures that are found in different kinds of living organisms. However, “shared features” are not transitional features, which is what Darwin needed. There is no scientific evidence to refute the idea that shared features were designed into creatures by a Creator who wisely formed them with the equipment to live in various shared habitats.
Fossils do reveal some truth about Darwin’s theory—they reveal that the same inconsistencies he noted between his theory and the fossil data persist, even after 150 years of frantic searches for elusive transitions.10 Not only is there no single, undisputed transition, but real fossils reveal that animals were fully formed from the beginning.
References
“I referred to allegory, a word for which certain other posters always substitute the word lie.”
I may have done that at first and for that I apologize. However, if most of the bible is allegory as you seem to imply then it is of no more use than Mother Goose or Aesop’s Fables. Just wise words written by men as social commentary and sound advice on how to live. It’s rendered useless as a path for salvation.
Serpent... snake... toe-maah-toe, toe-may-toe... same difference.
Would answering my questions damage your witness?
Just wondering. You want folks to answer yours...
Your answer: “If he wanted to, then of course he could.”
How can an omniscient entity, knowing everything, get lost? An omniscient entity, by definition, cannot get lost. Getting lost is proof that one is not omniscient. And, why would we (you and I) worship a god who is not omniscient. We would not even call such a god by that name (unless we were speaking of demigods, of course).
What is the fallacy here? Getting lost is an attribute of Man. God cannot be measured by an attribute of Man.
Not at all. You asked “Do you not agree that Catholics and Episcopalians, who are fine with the allegory concept, are Christians?”
I’m not quite as familiar with Episcopal doctrine as I am with Catholic, so I limited my answer. My answer was that I do not agree with your statement, and it has nothing to do with Genesis. It is possible believe Genesis is allegory (or whatever) and be saved; it’s not possible to believe all that Rome teaches and be saved.
Gordon, you may be limiting yourself to the modern notion that allegory or fable cannot be literally true. C.S. Lewis and Tolkien both wrote of myth becoming true. From Tolkien:
The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. They contain many marvels - peculiarly artistic, beautiful, and moving: ‘mythical’ in their perfect, self-contained significance; and among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe [the good outcome, ending, or consolation]. But this story has entered History and the primary world; the desire and aspiration of sub-creation has been raised to the fulfillment of Creation. The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man’s history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends in joy. It has pre-eminently the ‘inner consistency of reality.’ There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true, and one which so many sceptical men have accepted as true on its own merits. For the Art of it has the supremely convincing tone of Primary Art, that is, of Creation. To reject it leads to sadness or to wrath.
A number of good examples of double fulfillments in the Bible can be found in the Psalms:
Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am in distress; my eye wastes away from grief, my soul and body also. For my life is spent with sorrow, and my years with sighing; my strength fails because of my misery, and my bones waste away. I am the scorn of all my adversaries, a horror to my neighbors, an object of dread to my acquaintances; those who see me in the street flee from me. I have passed out of mind like one who is dead; I have become like a broken vessel. (Psa 31:9-12)
David wrote these words describing his own situation. Literally did he know that Jesus Christ would fulfill them again later. The pagan myths of a dying and rising God were a distorted image of the one who made the myth come true: Jesus Christ.
Everytime I read the Bible, I find that it speaks to me in different ways. As we continue to pray for wisdom and understanding, God reveals more of himself to us.
Sorry, but I haven't been following every single mini-thread. I just posted to you and Gordon regarding allegory. I may have bungled into that one, too, but I don't think the two of you disagree too much.
Yes, you are correct that modern people often substitute the word lie for allegory or myth. I find that a good dose of C.S. Lewis and Tolkien cures that fallacy.
Reread the first question. It was obviously asked sarcastically.
No problem, however, I believe that you underestimate the degree of difference.
I don’t care if my questions are answered or not. I just enjoy the debate. Your questions are designed to pigeonhole a specific, narrow definition of Christianity. I won’t play that game.
What exactly does “Rome” teach that denies Catholics salvation?
Mike,
I believe you are about as grounded in the Word as a Christian can be, but Buck doesn’t believe the way you or I do. I’m not ignorant to allegory or literature in particular. I very much appreciate your effort to find common ground, but this is not the first time the type of questions I’ve posed have been put to Buck and to my knowledge he has never answered them on freerepublic. I can only suspect it’s because his answers would be; how would you say... non-traditional.
You cannot both be a Christian yet hold that the basic tenets of the faith are just some noble story.
Let’s see if he answers the questions. Inquiring minds want to know.
Buck says... “I don’t care if my questions are answered or not. I just enjoy the debate. Your questions are designed to pigeonhole a specific, narrow definition of Christianity. I won’t play that game.”
So there you go. You judge if my questions were too narrow a definition of Christianity in light of what you believe about God.
1. What possible spiritual purpose does it serve for God to give us allegory pertaining to our creation?
2. How much of the Bible do you actually believe is true?
3. There are specific instances of parables or allegory in the Bible. How do you personally determine which are and are not where it is not outlined?
4. Do you believe Jesus is the only way to heaven?
5. Did Jesus really die on the cross as a substitute for our sins?
6. Was Jesus really the Son of God (in the sense He was the ONLY begotten Son of God)?
I’m not trying to prove what I believe. If I had to prove it, it wouldn’t be a belief... just a supposition. I just don’t want others to be mislead by possible heresy.
When it says it’s allegory, such as in Galatians 4:24, it’s allegorical.
When the symbols are explained, such as in many of the parables, it’s allegorical.
If there is a valid reason for believing Genesis is allegorical and there is a coherent explanation of the symbolism, I’d love to hear it. (Atheistic philosophy labeled “science” isn’t a valid reason.)
“I just don’t want others to be mislead”
misled... how embarrassing. Now I’ll never show my face in private again!
My question wasn't.
“Let’s see if he answers the questions. Inquiring minds want to know.”
I’m a Christian, that’s the sum total of my answer.
You’re questions are an attempt to “divide by definition” in a very unsavory way. As in Animal Farm, in which some animals were more equal than others, questions such as yours attempt to identify the “more equal” band of Christians. Sorry, but I won’t play. I’ll call you out on your specific beliefs where I feel they are wrong (e.g., creationism), but I won’t wear the tenets of my devout Christian faith on a sandwich board for you to critique.
My answer was.
“I’ll call you out on your specific beliefs where I feel they are wrong (e.g., creationism), but I won’t wear the tenets of my devout Christian faith on a sandwich board for you to critique.”
And that is precisely what I’m doing with you. You are obviously worried that someone will cease to listen to your message if you reveal your true beliefs.
You see, I don’t mind telling you exactly what I believe and wearing my faith as a badge of honor because I am convinced. The only reason I might hide my true beliefs is if I were either ashamed of them or if I wanted to hide them for some other prupose. ie: to pull others in slowly. It’s what many cults do. They preach Jesus and Christianity straight up then after they draw you in they reveal their “other” beliefs. Always something extra to “sweeten” what God is “truly” offering.
I’m not convinced of which is true with you. I just know it’s one or the other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.