Yet another old-earther accuses a creationist of believing in evolution

Creation Ministries International ^ | 4-12-2016 | Nick Sabato

[fishtank]

Yet another old-earther accuses a creationist of believing in evolution

by Nick Sabato

Published: 12 April 2016 (GMT+10)

On a 28 March 2016 blog post, Professor Ken Keathley made the allegation that Ken Ham now embraces evolution. He bases this unfounded assertion on a recent article where Ham discusses how the diversity of species present today can be traced back to their respective “kinds” represented on the Ark. For Keathley, it is “big news” that a prominent creationist “has embraced macro-evolution.” However, as will be seen, creationists in general embraced speciation for decades; it is not just a property of evolutionists.

First, the article in question has done no such thing, and secondly, variation within a kind is not “big news”, nor is it “macro-evolution”.

The same day that this fallacious post appeared, CMI’s Calvin Smith (and others) rebutted Keathley’s assertions in the comments section and pointed out his equivocation of speciation and evolution. And they further pointed out that his ‘micro-macro’ distinction is an example of ‘Arguments we think creationists should not use’, because the issue is not size of change but direction (informationally uphill or downhill).

[Oztrich Boy]

rapid speciation post-Noah has no evidence for it in the fossil record.

____________________________________________________________

Actually, according to Ham's AiG-sect it does

The Proboscidea ("elephant-kind" for the Delugists) hundred plus species of mostly fairly large, and very different animals, all in the post Deluge deposits of the last 5000 years.

Can't get them all on the Ark, so they must be all one kind, descended from just two critters. That's Gigaevolution.

And I have no idea why he won't admit he believes in Evolution.

[Springfield Reformer]

No disrespect to either of you but I will believe it when I hear it for myself. This is the kind of “quote” that is easy to misconstrue. I’d want to hear it in context, word for word, exactly the way Ham said it.

BTW, we did an experiment in my trial law class, where folks had to remember something they heard, when they hadn’t been prepared for it. This was an extremely bright group of young people (myself excepted, neither so young nor so bright), and all of them did poorly. The professor was highlighting the difficulty in getting accurate testimony based purely on human memory. So I hope you see that no offense to you is intended.

Peace,

SR

[William Tell]

angryoldfatman said: "Also, this leads to the possibility that the Biblical Adam was not the first Homo sapiens, but instead was the first one with a soul."

Is this then the explanation for where Adam's son's found wives? Do all the offspring of Homo Sapiens with souls who mate with Homo Sapiens without souls, have souls? Or is there some other explanation?

[jimmyray]

Most creationists have no problem with rapid speciation, it's the evolutionary explanation for the origin of Genus we take issue with. And abiogenesis.

FWIW, the fossil "record" does not support the evolutionary explanation of the origin of genus. If it did, there would be no Cambrian explosion, and no (silly) explanations like punctuated equilibrium.

[angryoldfatman]

No worries, it wasn’t a “reliance”, it was something I am keenly interested in, that being how do people reconcile seemingly impossible positions.

The supposedly impossible position in this case was reconciliation of the Flood story with the current scientific theories of geology.

I’m agnostic to this particular subject; it doesn’t really matter to me whether or not the current scientific theories are correct or the Flood story is 100% literally accurate. I have to work, pay bills, love my family, and do what my God tells me is right. What Noah did or what some ape did thousands or millions of years ago doesn’t affect me except by example.

[angryoldfatman]

Possibly, beats me. It was nothing I learned in Sunday school.

That question is so vexing to many Christians that it has become a weapon in atheists’ arsenals. It was used in the Scopes “monkey” trial, and it probably has origins much further back.

My answer? It doesn’t directly affect me in my day-to-day life exactly what Adam did, or Cain did, or Abel did. The only thing I can do is try to learn lessons about how to conduct myself from such stories. I’m not always successful, but neither am I perfect, so it is what it is.

[afsnco]

Agreed completely. Both evolution and creation are faith-based beliefs. And as John 1 and other passages declare, it was Jesus Himself who did the creating.

Another scary issue is false prophecy. Jesus spoke extensively about this subject in Matthew 7:15-23. The last three verses of the passage are:

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Many don’t realize that verses 21-23 are just a continuation of His teachings about false prophets, but that’s obviously the case because there’s nothing inherently wrong with either casting out devils in Christ’s name or doing wonderful works in Christ’s name. But prophesying falsely in His name is a BIG problem.

As Christ indicated above, false prophets are self-deluded about their salvation, catastrophically so. False prophets reject God’s will and substitute their own. They essentially call God a liar, saying that God didn’t say something He said and/or say that God said something He didn’t say. We have no right to do these things. We have no right to countermand God’s Word. A Christian’s duty is to read, study and submit, not change things and declare “what God really meant to say...” This is in the same category with “yea hath God said...”

Christians simply can’t go wrong by taking Scripture at face value, viewing history as history, poetry as poetry, etc. And there’s really zero doubt at all that Genesis 1 is communicating a 6 day creation. Hard to squeeze long ages into “the evening and the morning.” There’s also zero doubt that attributing the creation to His omnipotent power glorifies God, which is job one for all Christians. But we can go profoundly wrong, as indicated above, if we start substituting our will in place of God’s will.

No idea where God draws the line between saved but mistaken and damned and self-deluded, but a mistake that robs Him of glory that He and only He deserves to receive doesn’t sound like a minor infraction.

So, for this issue of false prophecy, it boils down to which Almighty God and which Jesus Christ do we worship? Do we worship the God of the Bible, or the god of our imaginations?

[BroJoeK]

fishtank:

Yes, I read the article, it's a crock of rubbish & nonsense.
Worse, it reveals what I've seen happen in other denier-populations: they eventually break down into non-denial denials.
In other words, they end up splitting theological hairs that make no real difference.

So where to even begin?
How about here: by definition of the terms, "adaption" = 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection = basic evolution.
In short, adaption = evolution = adaption = evolution ad infinitum.
The only differences are short-term versus long-term, and they are the same thing.

So, for some people to say, "oh, I believe in adaption, but not evolution" is just rubbish and nonsense.
They are the same thing.

But, but, but, say the anti-evos, they're not the same, because adaption always requires loss of DNA data, or changes to existing data, but never additional new data as would be required for speciation.

Again, rubbish & nonsense.

In fact, DNA itself cares nothing about whether a modification subtracts, changes or adds data, so long as the resulting offspring survive, prosper and reproduce.
Consider any example you wish -- if certain offspring are born slightly better able to run upright on two legs while others are slightly better able to climb trees, which one has "added" and which "subtracted" DNA information?
The answer is, as far as DNA is concerned, it doesn't matter except as there may be more or fewer trees to climb near-by any given population.

So adaption = evolution = adaption = etc., etc.

null and void: "I find it interesting that some of the people who reject the possibility of evolution happening over 100’s of millions or even billions of years have no trouble with it all happening since The Flood."

Exactly, but they call it "adaption", in hopes that will protect them from the dreaded "e-word".

aMorePerfectUnion: "I consider the diversity of species to just be natural selection and not evolution. "

Except that adaption = evolution = adaption = etc.

RoadGumby: "Evolution, changing of an organism to something new, is not true.
Adaptation is."

Except that biologically, adaption & evolution are the same thing, period.

RoadGumby: "You can breed dogs all day long, get LOTS of different forms....of dogs.
Get back to me when you get a Non-Dog."

Dogs are a species of wolves (genus: cauis) and, in fact, there are nine other species of non-dog wolves, including the closely related Grey Wolves.
But DNA studies show that none of those other species are ancestors of dogs, so the actual ancestors went extinct some time in the past 30,000+ years.

Point is: the data shows that over the past 30,000+ years human beings have created a new species of wolves: dogs.

afsnco: "Evolutionists modern sciences -- natural sciences -- reject a priori any hint of the supernatural.
But the supernatural is really the only explanation for even that most 'simple' single-celled organism."

Yes, agreed, but it's not just evolution theory, it's all of modern science -- see my correction above.
The name for all that is "methodological naturalism", and it means, in effect: when we put on our lab coats at work, we must set aside our religious beliefs in searching for natural explanations.

But it also means: when we take off our lab coats and go home to family and community, we can reassert our beliefs in the supernatural origins, guidance and destination of the natural realm.

afsnco: "Throw lifeless chemicals together and create life and prove creationists wrong."

All depends on your definition of that word, "life".
Already basic experiments have created pre-cursors of life, and theoretical work maps out some of its evolution to actual life.

boycott: "There should be far transitional fossils to support evolution.
The evidence just isn’t there."

Of course it is, literal tons of evidence.
But it's only visible to people who wish to see it.
You, for example, can stare at this photo all day long and never see a "transitional form". Why is that?

Theo: "Do you believe that sin preceded death, as the Scriptures teach?
Or that humanity developed out of cycles of life and death, as evolution teaches? "

Genesis 2 seems to me pretty clear on this: mankind was made out of dust, after which God breathed "the breath of life" into him and then man became a living soul.

Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

jimmyray: "Perhaps you dismiss 1 Timothy 6:19-21 as a minor detail, and no warning at all?"

No, it's not a "minor detail", it's a mistranslation in King James.
The original word actually means not "science" but rather "proto-Gnostics", and is now translated in most other Bibles as "false knowledge".
But it is not just any old "false knowledge", it's false spiritual knowledge, the very opposite of modern natural-science.
Natural science, by definition, is intended to be non-spiritual and therefore is not the target of Paul's warnings.

angryoldfatman: "this leads to the possibility that the Biblical Adam was not the first Homo sapiens, but instead was the first one with a soul."

Yes, indeed, Genesis 2 is explicit on that: 1) dust of the earth, 2) creation of man 3) then breath of life creating a living soul.
Really, it's not that hard, if people would just read it.

zot: " I agree that the seven 'days' of Genesis were not 24 hours long."

You're in good company because so do both Old Testament and New Testament:

Psalms 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."

2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

jimmyray: "You would have God actually speak a metaphor (lie, really) with His own voice, and subsequently write it with His own finger in stone (twice!)?
Is the length of a day in verse 9 different than the length of the day in verse 11?"

No, the Bible tells us clearly and unequivocally that God's day is not the same as ours, but He is totally satisfied if we keep one of our days Holy for Him.

Ostrich Boy: "And I have no idea why he won't admit he believes in Evolution."

It's theologians doing what theologians always do: splitting hairs, debating angels dancing on the head of a pin.

jimmyray: "Most creationists have no problem with rapid speciation, it's the evolutionary explanation for the origin of Genus we take issue with."

Now you're just blathering nonsense.

afsnco: "Both evolution and creation are faith-based beliefs."

Hardly, science is the opposite of "faith based", and totally depends on physical evidence.
It is also based on two great assumptions: 1) only natural explanations for natural processes and 2) processes we see today operated the same in Deep Time.

These assumptions are not just blind faith, since they are daily confirmed by innumerable observations (=facts) of people working in related fields, i.e., geology, paleontology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, etc., etc.

[Mechanicos]

It helps to remember that the Word tells us there is a multiplier of time when God is involved as compared to our perceptions of time.

“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” 2 Peter 3:8

As a side note, I have found most Evo-theists cannot do the math for that calculation.

Then we have the facts that atomic time is not the same as orbital time and atomic time has been slowing down - estimated to have been a thousand times faster at the origin.

The Decreasing Speed of Light - Dr. Barry Setterfield
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdTlOVTDbNU

[fishtank]

(CMI article caption for the image.) The Homo erectus skeleton of KNM-WT 15000 (left) is compared to the australopithecus afarensis skeleton of Lucy (right). There is a huge morphological gap between the essentially modern human postcranial skeleton of erectus and that of the australopithecine postcranial skeleton, as represented by Lucy. For example, the conical-shaped rib cage of Lucy suggests she was thick-waisted with a pot-bellied abdomen, like chimpanzees. Also, there is wide flaring of the ilia of Lucy’s pelvis, compared to the narrower ilia of humans. For further discussion, see Mehlert.113 (Image from Walker and Shipman.114)

http://creation.com/fossil-evidence-for-alleged-apemen-part-2-non-homo-hominids

My comment to your comment: That gallery of skulls might just be a combination of ape heads and human heads.

[BroJoeK]

Sorry for the typo:

Should read: "Dogs are a species of wolves (genus: canis).

[angryoldfatman]

Why does evolution matter so much to you, BroJoeK? Why did you feel compelled to type all of that out to all of these people?

If all the people who you’ve dedicated so much time and effort to rebutting here are indeed dead wrong about how biodiversity occurred, what harm does it do?

[BroJoeK]

fishtank: "My comment to your comment: That gallery of skulls might just be a combination of ape heads and human heads."

But it's not, of course, so why deny it?
Over 150+ years, fossil evidence produced hundreds of individuals' remains in dozens of different pre-human and early-human species-populations.
Whenever those are dated and lined up in sequence, they result in a gallery such as you see in post #48 above.

So why people would continue refusing to acknowledge "transitional forms" is inexplicable logically.

fishtank: "There is a huge morphological gap between the essentially modern human postcranial skeleton of erectus and that of the australopithecine postcranial skeleton, as represented by Lucy."

But Lucy herself is not included in this particular gallery.
If she were, you'd find her about half-way (= transitional) between the skull marked "A" and the next one marked "B".
She is classified as "Australopithecus afarensis", an ape-like hominid living between 3.9 and 2.5 million years ago.

The next in time were Homo Habilis, from 2.8 to 1.5 million years ago, represented in this particular gallery as skulls D, E, and F.
Then comes erectus, represented here by skulls G & H, and thought to have lived from 1.9 million years ago to relatively recent times, 70,000 years ago.

So consider what-all you are denying when you deny "transitional fossils".

[BroJoeK]

angryoldfatman: "Why does evolution matter so much to you, BroJoeK?"

Because I have a few hours of free time today, and this is an interesting subject.
Was hoping to save time by including everyone in one post.

angryoldfatman: "If all the people who you’ve dedicated so much time and effort to rebutting here are indeed dead wrong about how biodiversity occurred, what harm does it do?"

If it were just a trivial matter, then nobody would bother posting repeatedly about it, and yet they do.
Why? Obviously because they think it's very important.

My goal is simply to defend the Christianity and modern science I began learning as a child.
I don't consider them at war against each other, and don't like seeing either distorted.

How about you?

[RoadGumby]

Wolves, dogs, coyote, are Canines “dogs”. Breed them into FISH. Or perhaps a BIRD.

Diversity because of Adaptation is one thing, and PROVABLE. Evolution, the changing of form into an organism that is NOT what it originated from is NOT.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"Except that adaption = evolution = adaption = etc."

Thanks for sharing your opinions about this issue.

In your world view, it appears you believe these are equal.

In my world view they are vastly different.

Birds weren't anything other than birds. No new genes were created. Selection within the gene pool happened, yes.

[Just mythoughts]

When did God create all His souls/spirit intellect... God had Moses pen that after he form the man Adam, God breathe the breath of life, which means ‘soul’ in to that flesh body that made it ‘alive’. The soul/spirit intellect that returns to the Maker that sent it, sure are not part of the evolutionary fairy tail/tale. This flesh age has a time stamp that ends this flesh age, when the last soul/spirit intellect, agrees to take this flesh journey.

[BroJoeK]

RoadGumby: "Wolves, dogs, coyote, are Canines “dogs”. Breed them into FISH. Or perhaps a BIRD."

But nobody, nobody ever claimed that's what happened or happens in nature.
So you are just making a straw-man argument.

The geological record suggest that ancestors of fish and land animals first split apart circa 400+ million years ago.
Land animals split into amphibians and reptiles maybe 350 million years ago, and reptiles with proto-mammals circa 320 million years ago.
Birds split from reptiles about 150 million years ago -- all of these dates subject to debate and revision, but the orders of magnitude stand up to many different tests.

RoadGumby: "Evolution, the changing of form into an organism that is NOT what it originated from is NOT."

But nobody ever claimed instantaneous changes from one species to another.
The fossil records show that all major changes take place over many millions of years, with many "transitional forms".

[BroJoeK]

aMorePerfectUnion: "Birds weren't anything other than birds.
No new genes were created.
Selection within the gene pool happened, yes."

You're making a false straw-man argument, you misrepresent what evolution theory actually says.
In fact, before they were birds, their ancestors were a form of reptile, and the transition to birds took many millions of years -- that's what the fossil record confirms.

Bottom line: there's no such thing as adding or subtracting genes, that's just nonsense.
What happens are modifications to existing genes, mostly negative but occasionally helpful in survival, and so naturally selected.
Over very long times these modifications accumulate to the point where interbreeding between separated populations is no longer possible, and so we classify them as separate species.

That's it, that's evolution, simplified.

[BroJoeK]

Just mythoughts: "The soul/spirit intellect that returns to the Maker that sent it, sure are not part of the evolutionary fairy tail/tale."

Except for the "evolutionary fairy tale", I agree with your post.
I'm merely suggesting that evolution theory does not necessarily contradict the Bible.