Christian Forums

Quote from: pppp on Mon Oct 05, 2026 - 13:08:11There was a scientist who gave an evolutionary theory with 4 points.
But conventional science itself contradicted these four points.
I'll just write about two.
Acc., to this scientist, evolution occurred through a slow & gradual process.
Whereas Conventional science itself contradicts this, stating
that the fossil records show an abrupt appearance of major animals body plans over a short time frame without lengthy, gradual transitional chains of ancestors.

Well, let's ask a knowledgeable YE creationist...

Evidences for Darwin's second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin's third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin's fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

You've been misled about this.

Quote from: pppp on Mon Oct 05, 2026 - 13:08:11Then again, this scientist gave an incorrect mechanism.
Acc., to this mechanism cells shed invisible particles into the blood stream
to be collected in another organ related to passing on traits.
Whereas another Conventional scientist contradicted this theory
& replaced them with different laws after performing experiments with
pea plants (Pisum sativum).
This scientist's laws were fully accepted.

This is not one of the points of Darwin's theory.  Like all of the biologists of his time, he supposed that inheritance was in the blood.   But the important part of this issue is that the discovery of the way inheritance works cleared up an important problem for his theory. 

You see, if inheritance is in the blood, a new trait would be quickly swamped in a population like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.    But when it became clear that inheritance was like sorting beads, not like mixing paint, the problem no longer existed, and almost all biologists then accepted Darwin's theory.   

It's astonishing how many creationists are unaware that evolutionary theory is not about how life began.

"People are usually down on things they aren't up on."
Senator Everette Dirkson

Quote from: Amo on Wed Oct 07, 2026 - 11:14:29YEC are not just debating old earther "Christian" evolutionists. They are also debating the very many atheist evolutionists who do actually believe the theory is addressing where life came from. It is therefore not correct for you to state that evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life for any.

There are likely many erroneous ideas of what evolutionary theory says, held by creationists and some atheists.   It's worth noting that most atheists, and many creationists know better. 

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution
https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

A theory is only responsible for the claims it actually makes, not claims invented by people who are ignorant of the theory.

Thanks all the readers for your replies
& thanks The Barbarian for your replies.

 the posts which I had  given earlier, is where conventional science itself has contradicted itself.

Now, acc., to conventional science,
this massive marine animal descended from a small land animal.
But this is again contradictory to Biblical Scripture
as Scripture says that first God made the animals of the sea & the birds,
then the land animals.
So how could this massive marine animal have descended from  a small land animal.

Genesis 1
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Oct 07, 2026 - 11:34:52You are confusing what some evolutionists, Christian or otherwise, say with the theory of evolution.  It is a common mistake.

So it is a mistake to associate what evolutionists say, with the theory of evolution? Please do expound.

https://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic/

Quoted article below from link above.



During the nineteenth century Charles Darwin introduced his theory of evolution by natural selection. His goal was to show that life was not the result of divine intervention, but the work of blind naturalistic processes. Darwin claimed to have arrived at this truth by working strictly with the facts apart from any preconceived ideas, and this is exactly how most people today perceive Darwinism. Dissenters have argued that Darwinism is not science, but that Darwin superimposed an atheistic/materialistic worldview on nature, then searched for the facts to support his theory. Darwinians responded that Darwin's own writings show that he was not an atheist, but always believed in some form of deity. A careful study of Darwin's writings, especially his posthumously published private notebooks and personal communication, reveals that Darwin was indeed an atheist and his theory of natural selection was formulated to replace a Creator with naturalistic processes.


The concept of biological evolution is almost as old as life itself. Many men through the centuries expressed the belief that all living beings evolved from a common ancestor. Some attributed this evolutionary process to God and others to nature, but until the nineteenth century, no one had posited a mechanism by which it could have occurred that was remotely plausible.

In 1859, however, Charles Darwin published what is commonly called The Origin of Species, or Origin.1 His theory of natural selection working on chance variations revolutionized the world.

Today Darwinism is accepted by many people as a genuine scientific theory. The popularity of his theory is such that anyone who questions it is suspect and "inevitably attracts the speculative psychiatric eye to himself." Dissenters, such as Adam Sedgwick, have argued from the beginning, however, that Darwinism is not science, but is founded on a philosophy of atheism and materialism.

Many Darwinians have denied this assertion, believing that Darwinism is not atheistic. They claim that Darwin was always a believer in God, or that he became an unbeliever many years after he developed his natural selection theory. They argue that religion and evolution can be reconciled and that neither atheism nor naturalism influence belief in evolution.

The truth is that natural selection was Darwin's attempt to provide atheism with its much-needed "creation" story.4 Scientist Richard Dawkins maintains that because evolution made God unnecessary, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." The first step in connecting Darwinism with atheism is to examine the evidence that the theory's founder was an atheist and that the theory was formulated to make God unnecessary.


Early in his life Darwin believed in a personal God, Christ, the afterlife, and a literal interpretation of the Bible. His autobiography, written for his children, pictures him as a man who started out with a theistic worldview.

In 1828, at the age of 19, Darwin entered Cambridge to become a clergyman. At that time in his life he believed in the "strict and literal truth of every word of the Bible." During his three-year stay at Cambridge he read William Paley's Evidences for Christianity and Natural Theology with great delight and found Paley's teleological argument—that the apparent design in nature implies a Designer—to be conclusive.

On December 27, 1831, Darwin set out on a sailing voyage that would last several years. While onboard a ship named the Beagle, Darwin was still quite orthodox: "I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality."

After this excursion, Darwin spent the next few years (October 1836–January 1839) cogitating religion. He discovered what he perceived to be problems with the biblical record, and while he was at first unwilling to abandon his faith, disbelief eventually triumphed:

QuoteI can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete.

Darwin claimed that he remained a theist for many more years and that it wasn't until shortly after the publication of Origin that his theism began to weaken, even though his belief in the Christian God was extinguished. As he stated, theism "was strong in my mind...when I wrote the Origin of species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker."

Many scholars allude to passages in Darwin's writings to support their claim that while Darwin's theism began to weaken, he never completely abandoned his belief in God. In his chapter "Difficulties on Theory" he posed this question to those who compare the eye to a telescope: "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intelligent powers like those of man?" In the second and subsequent editions of Origin, Darwin closed with the following words: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that...from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

In 1879, a few years before Darwin's death (1882), a German student wrote to ask Darwin about his religious beliefs. A member of his family replied, "Mr. Darwin...considers that the theory of evolution is quite compatible with the belief in a God."

Darwin's rejection of Christianity and his continued belief in some form of deity is the picture most people have of him; and, I believe, this was the picture Darwin wanted to portray. A case can be made for a theistic Darwin; however, a careful and thorough study of his writings reveals that not only was the latter part of his life (following Origin) atheistic, but his disbelief can be traced back much earlier than Darwin had claimed.


Darwin's autobiography discusses arguments for and against the existence of God. "The old argument," says Darwin, "of design in nature, as given by Paley, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered." Darwin also found the problem of suffering quite convincing as an argument against belief in God:

QuoteA being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage could there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.

Darwin argued that it was natural selection alone that could account for the facts. In Darwin's worldview, natural selection was incompatible with God and was meant to replace Him. He told Charles Lyell in 1859, "If I were convinced that I required such additions [new powers and attributes and forces] to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish." In his 1868 work he said that either God or natural selection is unnecessary, leaving his readers to decide between the two. He had even referred to his theory as "the Devil's gospel"16 and called natural selection "My deity."

Toward the end of the religious section of his autobiography, Darwin summarized his position: "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic...Nothing is more remarkable than the spread of skepticism or rationalism during the latter half of my life."

Despite Darwin's claim that skepticism ruled only the latter part of his life, evidence from a large number of recently published private notebooks, dating from 1836 to 1844, has revealed that Darwin expressed belief in atheism and materialism as early as May 1838, several months before he developed natural selection. The notebook entries of 1838 were, according to evolutionist Ernst Mayr, "thoroughly materialistic." Darwin wrote, "Being hereditary it is difficult to imagine [thought] anything but structure of brain," and, "Love of the deity effect of organization, oh you materialist!...Why is thought being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity a property of matter?" By July of 1838, he wrote, "To avoid stating how far, I believe, in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent, which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock." It has also been pointed out that the marginal comments of the physiological books Darwin was reading at that time show that he sided with the materialists.

Did Darwin lie about his late rejection of theism? Some seem to think so. Others, such as Neal Gillespie, have tried to reconcile Darwin's theism with the notebook entries: "I would suggest that not only was Darwin's materialism compatible in his mind with theism, but that it represented no interest in a thoroughgoing atheistic philosophical or metaphysical materialism."

The problem with Gillespie's explanation is that it fails to account for the entries that were so apparently atheistic, such as, "The above argument [for free will] would tend to make man a predestinarian of a new kind, for the man would tend to become an atheist." In a letter to J. D. Hooker a few years later, Darwin wrote, "I am almost convinced...that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable."

Many scholars are coming to the conclusion that Darwin was in fact an atheist well before the publication of Origins Howard Gruber stated, "The material gives clear evidence for Darwin's realization during this period that his ideas were indeed materialistic, tending toward atheism, and therefore dangerous." Stephen Jay Gould likewise said, "The notebooks prove that, Darwin was interested in philosophy and aware of its implications. He knew that the primary feature distinguishing his theory from all other evolutionary doctrines was its uncompromising philosophical materialism."


In addition to showing that he tended toward atheism, Darwin's writings also show, as we saw earlier, that he made recourse to "God-talk" on many occasions. Darwin's language on the subject is so ambiguous that it has long frustrated scholars:

QuoteThe ambiguity of Darwin's "God-talk" is notorious. What is meant when he speaks of the "laws impressed on matter by the Creator" and yet ridicules special creation? What ground does he stand on when in the same letter he writes "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars..." and "I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what may be called chance" and "all these laws have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every event and consequence."

Darwin's writings have allowed both sides of this debate to find in them what they want to find; nonetheless, those who see Darwin as a theist (or deist) have more difficulty reconciling the atheistic passages with their view than those who see Darwin as an atheist have reconciling the theistic passages with their view. The Darwin-as-atheist school has offered at least two plausible explanations for Darwin's so-called theistic language.

Some believe that Darwin used God-talk because he didn't want to offend his friends, and especially didn't want to upset his wife, Emma, who was a very religious (Christian) woman. Emma married Charles in 1839, and shortly afterwards discovered his unbelief. She wrote to Charles revealing how dismayed she was, and expressed how unhappy she would be if Charles didn't belong to her for all eternity.

Years later, Edward Aveling and Ludwig Buchner were afforded the opportunity to have lunch with Charles, Emma, and some close friends. In Emma's presence they spoke only of scientific matters. Later, in Darwin's private study, away from Emma, Darwin immediately initiated a conversation about religion. He told his guests how his wife was very orthodox on all points and he expressed "how he experienced no little pain in publishing his scientific discoveries from the fact that the statement of them in some cases was liable to hurt those who were very near and dear to him."

Emma certainly influenced Darwin to temper his writings, but I believe there was a more significant reason behind Darwin's ambiguity. Darwin witnessed the "crucifixion" of many materialists in his day. Even Robert Chambers, who spoke repeatedly of God in his 1844 book on evolution, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, was severely criticized and labeled a materialist. If Chambers couldn't achieve acceptance, how much more difficult would it have been for Darwin, whose theory was materialistic to the core? Darwin wasn't fond of controversy, which may account for Origin's late publication. When it finally was forced into publication many rejected its theory for religious reasons. It was always possible to reconcile God with his theory, however, and so I believe Darwin spiced up his God-talk to overcome this chief objection.

If this seems like mere speculation, consider what Darwin wrote to his good friend J. D. Hooker in 1863: "I have long regretted that I have truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process."

David Kohn has recently pointed out that Darwin amended passages in his 1844 essay on which Emma had commented. He believes Emma became Darwin's model of the conventional Victorian reader. Emma's ability to alter the construction of Darwin's texts means one crucial thing for Kohn: "Not a word of the ambiguous God-talk in...Origin can be taken at face value."


In the remaining (postautobiography) years of Darwin's life, he did not, as some claim, rediscover his Christian faith or even his belief in God. As mentioned earlier, Aveling and Buchner, two militant atheists, visited Darwin in 1881, one year before his death. Darwin at one point asked his guests, "Why do you call yourselves atheists, and say there is no God?" Aveling explained that they did not say there was no God; rather, that because there was no evidence of deity, they were unable to believe in the idea of God and were therefore without God. Darwin agreed fully with their position, but chose a different word for it: "I am with you in thought, but I should prefer the word Agnostic to the word Atheist."

The Duke of Argyll likewise had a conversation with Darwin a year before his death. The Duke pointed out some wonderful designs in nature and suggested they were the expression of Mind. Darwin looked hard at the Duke and said, "'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,' shaking his head, 'it seems to go away.'"

Though these two meetings confirm that Darwin retained his unbelief, there was another meeting that supposedly took place with Lady Elizabeth Hope in the very last days of his life, in which he spoke of his conversion to Christianity. The story first appeared in the Boston Watchman Examiner in 1915:

QuoteIt was on one of those glorious Autumn afternoons, that we sometimes enjoy in England, when I was asked to go in and sit with the well known professor, Charles Darwin. He was almost bedridden for some months before he died...He was sitting up in bed...[holding] an open Bible, which he was always studying. "What are you now reading?" I asked. "Hebrews!" he answered—"still Hebrews. 'The Royal Book,' I call it. Isn't it grand?"...I made some allusion to the strong opinions expressed by many persons on the history of the Creation, its grandeur, and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the book of Genesis. He seemed greatly distressed..."I was a young man of unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."...Then he paused...he suddenly said, "I have a summer house in the garden, which holds about thirty people...I want you very much to speak there...Will you speak to them?" "What shall I speak about?" I asked. "Christ Jesus!" he replied in a clear, emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, "and his salvation. Is not that the best theme?"

Only a very small band of Christians have ever believed and propagated this story. Evolutionists and the majority of creationists reject this story, and rightly so, for the evidence against Darwin's end-of-life conversion is convincing.

The story contains inconsistencies. For example, it claims that Darwin was almost bedridden for months; but, as one of Darwin's biographers noted, "He refused to be bedridden and worked whenever he had the strength." There also appears to be many different versions of the same story.

When rumors of Darwin's conversion first surfaced in 1887, the editor of the Toronto Mail, Charles Deduchson, wrote to Darwin's close friend Thomas Huxley to verify whether the story was true. Huxley denied the allegation and forwarded a copy of Deduchson's letter to Darwin's son, Francis, who likewise denied his father's conversion.

Darwin's eldest daughter also was present at his death and has testified that her father never met Lady Hope and never recanted his "scientific views." She stated that the whole story was a fabrication that probably originated in the United States.


It appears that Darwin had a deep and abiding faith in atheistic materialism. The controversial question I now wish to address is, Did Darwin's atheistic and materialistic beliefs play any part in the development of his theory, or was Darwin led strictly by the facts? Darwin would have us believe that the facts alone led him to his theory: "My first notebook was opened in July 1837. I worked on true Baconian principles, and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale, more especially with respect to domesticated productions, by printed enquires, by conversation with skillful breeders and gardeners, and by extensive reading."

Darwin's writings also demonstrate, however, that the facts played a very small part in the formulation of his theory. His early notebooks show that he entertained two other theories of evolution before finally arriving at his final theory. George Grinnell, in his study of Darwin's first theory of evolution, asks this question: "Were these three theories complementary or were they mutually exclusive? If they were complementary, then the implication is clearly in favor of the importance of the empirical data in shaping Darwin's thought, but if they were mutually exclusive, the implication is that Darwin approached the data with a prior world view which he attempted to superimpose on the data by means of various hypothetical models and mechanisms."

Grinnell has come to believe that Darwin's three models were indeed mutually exclusive. Darwin rejected theory one (variation by isolation) because it contained too many anomalies. Darwin then turned his attention to theory two (variation by habit), but soon abandoned it for a third model (variation by domestic breeding), which turned out to be the most fruitful. "The extent to which he was willing to push one model," argues Grinnell, "and after its collapse, to entertain new models suggests that he was philosophically inclined to transmutation theories for reasons that transcend the empirical data with which he originally worked."

That Darwin had a philosophical inclination toward evolutionary thinking is further supported by his response to evidence that contradicted his theory, including: (1) lack of transitional forms, (2) sudden appearance of Cambrian fossils, (3) the problem of coordinated development, (4) persistent types (i.e., species that do not change), and (5) the existence of nonadaptive structures. Rather than allowing contrary evidence to falsify the theory, as a good scientist would, Darwin offered a plethora of ad hoc hypotheses to save the theory from falsification. Later, he even embraced theories that he once ridiculed, such as Lamarckism (the theory that evolution occurs through the inheritance of traits acquired through the use or disuse of body parts) and group selectionism, to solve special problems that natural selection could not solve.

Further, when pressed on why there are persistent types, Darwin admitted that his theory must be based entirely on general considerations (i.e., the struggle for survival) and, when it gets right down to it, the theory requires faith: "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed...nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not." Darwin's theory was not scientific, as he claimed it to be. He had such a blind faith in materialism that he was willing to ignore or bend observations, and resort to ad hoc reasoning on an unprecedented level.

Why did Darwin lie about how his theory was formulated? The advice he gave to John Scott in 1863 may provide the answer: "I would suggest to you the advantage, at present, of being very sparing in introducing theory in your papers...let theory guide your observations, but till your reputation is well established be sparing in publishing theory. It makes persons doubt your observations" (emphasis in original). Darwin recognized that people are more apt to accept a new theory if they believe it arose from the facts rather than from a preconceived idea, especially one that is inherently atheistic.


Though Charles Darwin was a theist in his early life, the evidence suggests his worldview began to change after his sea voyage. As early as 1837, Darwin became an evolutionist, and in the spring of the following year he embraced a materialistic and atheistic worldview that would go with him to his grave. In the fall of 1838 Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection.

Darwin claimed to have developed his theory of natural selection without any preconceived notions, but his writings indicate that his newfound materialistic faith was foundational in its development.54 On finding a theory that "worked," or at least worked better than the other theories he entertained, he then searched for the facts that supported his theory, ignoring and explaining away all contrary evidence.

Scholars such as George Grinnell, who have studied Darwin for years, are also coming to a similar conclusion: "I have done a great deal of work on Darwin and can say with some assurance that Darwin also did not derive his theory from nature but rather superimposed a certain philosophical world-view on nature and then spent 20 years trying to gather the facts to make it stick."

The popular understanding of Darwin's beliefs and his practices as a scientist is contrary to the facts. Darwin's theory was never meant to be compatible with a Creator. Its purpose was to remove God from the last sphere of life He had so dominated. It was an attempt to demolish Paley's argument from design and give atheism its own "creation" story.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Wed Oct 07, 2026 - 15:30:45Well, let's ask a knowledgeable YE creationist...

Evidences for Darwin's second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin's third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin's fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

You've been misled about this.

Quoting what YEC Kurt Wise quoted as evidence evolutionists refer to in support of their theory, does not equal actual evidence, as Kurt himself is no doubt arguing against evolution in the presentation you have quoted. He was probably countering these suggested evidences, being a YEC himself. A direct link to the article or video you got this info from, would of course clear all misunderstandings up.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Oct 09, 2026 - 08:16:53Quoting what YEC Kurt Wise quoted as evidence evolutionists refer to in support of their theory, does not equal actual evidence, as Kurt himself is no doubt arguing against evolution in the presentation you have quoted. He was probably countering these suggested evidences, being a YEC himself. A direct link to the article or video you got this info from, would of course clear all misunderstandings up.

He's just being honest about the facts.  The evidence supports evolution and common descent.  But he prefers his understanding of scripture.  It's an honest position.  And yes, in the article he suggests ways that there might someday be a consistent theory that supports YE creationism.

At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales. On the other hand, clues that an alternative solution might be forthcoming comes from the following considerations:

 During the development of some sperm whales the fetus develops portions of hind limb and pelvic bones and subsequently resorbs them. Other modern cetaceans have other bones in embryology and sometimes adulthood which suggest hind limb vestiges.75 This suggests that modern cetaceans have latent genetic information for the development of small hind limbs. Could this mean that Basilosaurus, for example, (which has hind limbs and pelvis) is actually an early post-Flood representative of some cetacean baramin and that modern cetaceans of that baramin are actually descendant from it — or something similar to it?
https://backend.creation.com/assets/857cd6d9-377d-42d9-abef-c32e6efbe8ce/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Genetic research since this paper shows that people, for example, have genes for tails. 

Why humans don't have tails becomes clear during early development, where embryos briefly form a tail-like structure. Around weeks four to eight, this extension appears as part of normal growth before undergoing embryonic tail resorption. Most of this structure is absorbed back into the body, leaving only a small fused segment known as the coccyx vestigial structure.
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/61652/20260415/why-humans-dont-have-tails-evolution-genetics-science-behind-tail-loss.htm

This doesn't mean that humans evolved from monkeys (which have tails) rather than from other bipedal apes (which don't have tails).   It means that the inactive genes for tails existed in apes generally.

Nature 28 February 2024
On the genetic basis of tail-loss evolution in humans and apes
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07095-8

QuoteThough Charles Darwin was a theist in his early life, the evidence suggests his worldview began to change after his sea voyage. As early as 1837, Darwin became an evolutionist, and in the spring of the following year he embraced a materialistic and atheistic worldview that would go with him to his grave. In the fall of 1838 Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection.

The writer is confused or is just making up stories.   In fact, the last sentence of Darwin's On the Origin of Species attributes the origin of living things to God.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; andthat, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES
by Charles Darwin
1859

QuoteHe's just being honest about the facts.  The evidence supports evolution and common descent.  But he prefers his understanding of scripture.  It's an honest position.  And yes, in the article he suggests ways that there might someday be a consistent theory that supports YE creationism.

The man has been teaching YEC theory for decades now. He doesn't think there might be, he has been actively teaching it.

Nothing supports evolution and common descent. There is now, and always has been a complete lack of actual fossil evidence among un numbered fossils, of transitional forms of life completely necessary to the theory of evolution. Darwin thought time would solve this problem. It has not. To the contrary, the minuscule number of suggested fossils of transitional forms, are highly contested even among evolutionists themselves.

Fossils themselves are the product of rapid or catastrophic conditions  of rapid burial and therefore preservation. Not deep time slow burial or preservation as so often promoted by deep timers. We do not see anything like the fossilization we find the world over, going on due to normal slow processes all around us. Which fully tend toward the decay of dead and dying things long before they could be buried and preserved as we find them the world over. This is not to mention the continued destruction of buried life forms by elements and or creatures that feed on or cause decay once buried as well. This is what we observe concerning dead and dying things. Not some long drawn out process of fossilization that can explain the massive fossil graveyards and otherwise which are all over the earth. The obvious result of catastrophic events on a global scale which we have not ever observed since their occurrence. 

There is no question but that the transitionary forms evolutionists suggest, should be found among the millions of fossils buried enmass around the world. With so many different specimens obviously buried rapidly, in some cases over vast areas of entire continents, there is no excuse for not being able to find them along side of so many buried so rapidly. There simply are not any, but in the minds of those who wish it to be so.

QuoteAt present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales. On the other hand, clues that an alternative solution might be forthcoming comes from the following considerations:

 During the development of some sperm whales the fetus develops portions of hind limb and pelvic bones and subsequently resorbs them. Other modern cetaceans have other bones in embryology and sometimes adulthood which suggest hind limb vestiges.75 This suggests that modern cetaceans have latent genetic information for the development of small hind limbs. Could this mean that Basilosaurus, for example, (which has hind limbs and pelvis) is actually an early post-Flood representative of some cetacean baramin and that modern cetaceans of that baramin are actually descendant from it — or something similar to it?
https://backend.creation.com/assets/857cd6d9-377d-42d9-abef-c32e6efbe8ce/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Genetic research since this paper shows that people, for example, have genes for tails. 

Why humans don't have tails becomes clear during early development, where embryos briefly form a tail-like structure. Around weeks four to eight, this extension appears as part of normal growth before undergoing embryonic tail resorption. Most of this structure is absorbed back into the body, leaving only a small fused segment known as the coccyx vestigial structure.
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/61652/20260415/why-humans-dont-have-tails-evolution-genetics-science-behind-tail-loss.htm

This doesn't mean that humans evolved from monkeys (which have tails) rather than from other bipedal apes (which don't have tails).  It means that the inactive genes for tails existed in apes generally.

Nature 28 February 2024
On the genetic basis of tail-loss evolution in humans and apes
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07095-8

None of it means anything that is only suggested in the quotes themselves. Could it be, has never equaled it is. Which is all moreover only presumed by evolutionists. As scientists prove themselves wrong over and over again throughout history, such being the predominant way they learn, concerning that which cannot yet be observed. 

In the end, when God straightens all things out, we will all know exactly what the evidence actually supported. For now, YEC's, Evolutionists, and who ever or whatever, claim what we can all see and or examine as evidence for their theories.

The following link addresses your points concerning Kurt Wise' observations regarding whales. Which is where the quotes below it are form. Where the article may be viewed in its entirety.

https://answersingenesis.org/young-earth-evolution/walking-whales-on-noahs-ark/

Quote

Walking Whales on Noah's Ark?

...............................................................

Examining the Wise (and Otherwise) Arguments

Vestigial Hind Limbs

Let's begin by examining the "vestigial limbs" found on whales and dolphins. It has certainly been documented in scientific literature, as well as anecdotal accounts from fishermen, that on rare occasions small rear flippers have been found on dolphins and small bones have been found on the backs of some whales. Counting both the scientific and anecdotal accounts, starting with Roy Chapman Andrews' 1921 report of a 1919 humpback whale find off Vancouver island all the way to the 2006 find of a dolphin with two rear fins, we have about a century of observed cases. Yet for all this time, we have approximately 10 cases. One case involved a herd of 450 blue-white (or striped) dolphins, caught by Japanese fisherman off the eastern coast of Izu Peninsula. Out of the 450 dolphins, only one had what was described as "rudimentary hind limbs." Yet no mention of bones was in the account, so these were likely a pair of rear flippers. All other accounts of vestigial hind limbs are similar singletons, but some have been documented and photographed showing bones in right whales, sperm whales, and humpback whales. Most of these bones are ridiculously small, often just several centimeters, and bear no resemblance to femurs and tibia (although evolutionary biologists frequently make that claim).

Using the example of the 450 dolphins above, why was only one found with "vestigial" hind limbs? And out of the many whales killed for food, accidentally killed, or beached over the past 100 years, why have so few "vestigial" limbs been reported? Paleontologist Roy Chapman Andrews stated this in 1921 after examining the "hind leg bones" of a female humpback whale: "After studying the material and discussing it with various scientists, I have come to the conclusion that the protrusions actually do represent vestigial hind limbs and show a remarkable reversion to the primitive quadrupedal condition." If there exists a vestigial organ or set of bones on an animal, shouldn't it be much more pervasive in specimens? The scarceness of these bones (or rear flippers) indicates they are much more likely the result of mutation than a genetic throwback. We occasionally see five-legged pigs and cows, yet these are never (nor should they be) claimed as vestigial limbs of an alleged six-legged porcine or bovine ancestor. Rather than proof of an evolutionary lineage, they are proof that we live in a cursed world.

The Fossil Record of True Whales

Dr. Wise does bring up a cogent point in that there are no true whale fossils found before the late Eocene, which is viewed by many creation geologists as post-flood. The argument goes that since we have good fossil representation of marine reptiles like plesiosaurs and mosasaurs from the flood, why not whales if they existed as obligate marine mammals and presumably inhabited the same ecological zones (deep-water environments)? One explanation is fairly straightforward: whales have blubber, whereas most marine reptiles do not, which means whales and dolphins would have been more likely to float upon dying and not be buried, thus making it more likely they were scavenged and not fossilized. Second, the flood would have created highly turbulent and toxic conditions in the oceans due to underwater volcanos, turbulent and mud-laden waters, etc. All sea life with gills (fish, including large sharks) would have been much more likely to succumb to water toxicity or have their gills covered in sediment and asphyxiate. Whales could always surface and breathe in oxygen, making them much more likely to survive the flood. Marine reptiles (which also breathe air and must surface) likely could not stay submerged very long. The average time between breaths for sea snakes, for example is 20–30 minutes. Whales on the other hand can routinely go 90 minutes, and one dive was recorded at 222 minutes. Third, do we really know that whales and marine reptiles shared the same ecological zones in the preflood world? In reality, most creation models postulate shallow oceans, which means the more likely "kill zones" for marine life during the flood were near shore vs. offshore—which would lead, again, to less representation of large sea mammals in the fossil record.

Also, while Dr. Wise accepts the K-Pg boundary as the post-flood boundary, his argument for whales would likewise need to be stretched to include pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, and walruses), whose fossil record only goes back to the late Oligocene and early Miocene (Enaliarctos and Puijila). And yes, Wise does believe that most semiaquatic mammals might have been on the ark or might have been represented by fully terrestrial ancestors as well (in contrast to the Ark Encounter's stance).

QuoteMammals such as otters, beavers, muskrats and even seals may have may have been able to survive on the ark without having to live in the water. Finally, some of the animals which are aquatic or marine today may not have been aquatic at the time of the Flood. The marine and sea otters, for example are members of the mustelid (weasel) family and their aquatic character is likely to have been revealed after the Flood. The whales might turn out to be another example. Only when including the legged archeocetes (and/or possibly the terrestrial suborder Acreodi) do the whales have a fossil record continuous with the Flood.

But let's consider the coelacanth, which was supposedly extinct since the end of the Cretaceous (usually the latest fossils are dated to about 80–70 mya), and yet they still exist today. Likewise, Lavesia, a genus of atelestid fly originally discovered in 1999 as a fossil in amber and believed to have gone extinct over 100 million years ago, was found to be a living species found in Namibia in 2010. And Monoplacophora, a class of mollusks, was believed to have gone extinct in the middle Devonian Period until living members were discovered in deep water off Costa Rica in 1952. All of these would be considered non-ark occupants which clearly survived the flood yet left no fossil record in late-flood (Cretaceous) or post-flood rocks.

Biblical Arguments Against the Land-to-Sea Whale Fossil Series

The term used for "created kind" in creation biology is baramin, which was derived by creation scientists from two Hebrew words: bara (translated as "create" in Genesis 1:1, 21, and 27) and min (translated as "kind" in Genesis 1:21 and 24–25, when God created the sea, winged, and land creatures on days five and six and in Genesis 6:20 and 7:14 to refer to land animals and flying creatures that Noah brought on board the ark). Of particular interest to this discussion is Genesis 1:21's account of day five: "So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Contrast this with the day-six creatures God created: "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.' And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1:24–25).

It's doubtful that there are many (if any) creationists out there who would argue that lungfish were created on day six as a "creeping kind." However, why not argue that they were created on day five as sea creatures, yet by the time of the flood had become a terrestrial kind and had to be on Noah's ark since they breathe through their lungs and can drown? They have small limbs (which makes them semiaquatic), and "the larvae have external gills that are reabsorbed during their metamorphosis into fully developed lungfish." (Any of this sound familiar?) So why not lungfish as ark occupants? I think that we can see that they are still "fish" despite their adaptability to semiaquatic or drought conditions.

But more importantly, we also see that the aquatic animal kinds were created on day five for a reason: to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas" (Genesis 1:22). Notice also that after creating the land creatures (and before he created man), God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:25). If they were created as terrestrial or land-dependent semiaquatic creatures and were declared "good" in their design, why and how would they move to the sea with their designed-for-land features? Most YECs accept that there are kind boundaries that cannot be crossed, and the day five and six creatures certainly fit into this biblical-kind exclusion. In other words, a day six created kind could not become a day five creature, or vice versa.

Developmental Arguments Against the Land-to-Sea Whale Fossil Series


As PhD marine biologist Robert Carter has said,

QuoteThe evolutionary ancestors of whales could not nurse their young underwater. Their breathing and eating systems were still connected. They would have had no need for those strange mouth plates that baleen whales use to filter out krill from the water. They would not have had the ability to echolocate. There are entire suits of morphological and behavioural changes that are necessary to explain whales.

Creation geologist John Woodmorappe discusses the tail fluke of whales and says in reference to a study on whale fluke evolution, "It is not only the limbs, but also the tail, which supposedly underwent extensive modifications in order to convert a terrestrial creature into an aquatic one. Entirely omitted in the National Geographic article is the fact that, owing partly to preservation problems, there is a lack of intermediates between tails and flukes."

Dr. Brian Thomas of ICR covered some additional features of rorqual whales (blue and minke whales) that show there are too many diverse and finely tuned irreducible complexities in blue and minke whales for them to have evolved all at once: "The precisely arranged body parts of rorqual whales were all required to coexist simultaneously for them to eat and survive, confounding whale evolution and confirming Genesis 1:21." In another article, Thomas stated this in more detail:

QuoteA subset of baleen, rorqual whales eat through a process known as "lunge feeding" that requires a long list of fully formed features. One of those unique traits, essential for the whale's feeding, involves the mouth and the jaw—the accordion-like skin folds on the throat greatly expand when they swallow huge mouthfuls of prey-laden water.

No combination of natural processes could have organized rorqual whale features, even considering toothed whales as possible evolutionary precursors. All the necessary traits were required for survival in the beginning, so they must all have popped into existence by a miraculous creation event.

In the journal Nature, American and Canadian scientists described a previously unknown sensory organ situated in the front and center of the whale's lower jawbone, where the bone is split into left and right halves. The organ measures and informs the brain about the resistance force upon the whale's gaping mouth when lunge feeding. The unique organ also detects "dynamic rotation of the jaws during mouth opening and closure," according to the report. In other words, without this sensory organ whales would not know how much force is too much when lunging through water—they could fatally damage themselves without this key sensory and data coordination device.

And according to the study authors, baleen whales need all of the following parts linked in precise proportions in order to eat: comb-like baleen to filter out food; expandable, accordion-like "ventral groove blubber" with cartilaginous support bars; the newly discovered sensory organ; a split jaw that is loosely connected to the skull; and tactile organs, "vibrissae," along the chin that sense prey.

No Walking Whales

Whales were created on day five of creation week as fully aquatic creatures. They were commanded to fill the seas and did not evolve from or speciate out from terrestrial or semiaquatic animals before or after the flood. The level of change goes way beyond inter-baraminic generation and speciation. It would require a complete body-plan overhaul and several adaptations arriving at exactly the same time for the creature to survive. And "evolution" (or YEE [young-earth evolution] hyper-fast speciation) would have to do this twice because of the vast differences in baleen and toothed whales. And in evolutionary timeframes, there are only tens of millions of years to go from terrestrial to semiaquatic to obligate aquatic creatures (which by evolutionary standards is lightning fast).

But even more disturbing in this line of thought from a creation perspective is that it overemphasizes the evolutionary "whale ancestors" in the fossil record (alleged semiaquatic whales), or the lack of one for Mysticeti and Odontoceti, prior to the late Eocene. As noted above, there are plausible models for the lack of whale fossils before the late Eocene/early Oligocene.

Another issue with whales "walking" off the ark is that it implies that God's categories of land and sea creatures can be easily and readily blurred and that God's good design of land creatures (if they indeed later became sea creatures) was not "good enough" for them to stay land creatures. While some may point out that the pinnipeds and sea otters are in the same category, they are not, nor would they ever be, described as obligate sea creatures. They still mate and bear live young on land (although sea otters can and do sometimes give birth in the water) and spend considerable time basking, socializing, and even fighting on land. Sea otters have also been noticed going onto land to rest, groom, or nurse.

Finally, falling back on the outdated "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" argument to argue that a few individual cetaceans that have "limb buds" which get reabsorbed during early embryonic stages as proof of either an evolutionary ancestor or a terrestrial or semiaquatic land creature lineage is lamentable. As Dr. Jake Hebert has said,

QuoteYEEs tend to play up supposed evidence for evolution while playing down evidence for creation. Is this because the evidence is truly equivocal and we creationists have been overstating our position? Or is it because YEEs are philosophically opposed even to the possibility that the evidence could strongly favor creation? . . .

Biblical creationists cannot afford to get this wrong. Affirming a recent creation and a global flood is meaningless if one claims that evidence for these things is ambiguous or equivocal. Biblical creation is true, and the scientific and historical evidence strongly confirms this.

We all worship a god, even if that god only ends up being ourselves in the end. Let's put a little more context around Darwin's closing statement which you have quoted, to reveal that the god he referred to in his closing sentence, was not the God of Holy Scripture. Emphasis in the following quote is mine.

QuoteAuthors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distinct futurity. And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are grouped, shows that the greater number of species in each genus, and all the species in many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups within each class, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence, we may look with some confidence to a secure future of great length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Darwin did not believe in the God of Holy Scripture, or the gospel of Jesus Christ for that matter. As his final testimony argues directly against the testimony of both. He created his own god, according as he decided to believe apart from the testimonies of Holy Scripture. As all of the lost will have done in the end.

2Th 2:1  Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2  That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3  Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4  Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5  Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6  And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8  And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9  Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10  And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12  That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Jhn 17:14  I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15  I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16  They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18  As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19  And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 20  Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21  That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Psa 119:126 It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law. 127  Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold. 128  Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way. 129  PE. Thy testimonies are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them. 130  The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. 131  I opened my mouth, and panted: for I longed for thy commandments. 132  Look thou upon me, and be merciful unto me, as thou usest to do unto those that love thy name. 133  Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me. 134  Deliver me from the oppression of man: so will I keep thy precepts. 135  Make thy face to shine upon thy servant; and teach me thy statutes. 136  Rivers of waters run down mine eyes, because they keep not thy law. 137  TZADDI. Righteous art thou, O LORD, and upright are thy judgments. 138  Thy testimonies that thou hast commanded are righteous and very faithful. 139  My zeal hath consumed me, because mine enemies have forgotten thy words. 140  Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. 141  I am small and despised: yet do not I forget thy precepts. 142  Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.

Exo 20:1  And God spake all these words, saying .......
8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygSxvK71IJE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXd--8PUGtU

Two more good ones from Answers In Genesis Canada.

Thanks all the readers for your replies.
Science will always come up with new theories, make new laws/formulae,
& when a better theory or law comes, it replaces the old one.

But what believers in God should know is the fact that God knows what's best for His people.

He never keeps His people in confusion & He doesn't do anything that will leave His people getting confused,
nor did God ever write or do anything that would have led to confusion.

Though science is very interesting giving good information,
yet some scientists look at evolution from a scientific point of view rather a Biblical one.

But what they do is, depending on a point of view that is basically based on assumptions, observations, experiments & years of study,
but The Holy Bible tells about evolution from how God made it, a perfect earth,
rather than evolution through millions of years.

And when believers read the Holy Bible ...what do they understand from it?
That God was not imperfect, rather a God who knew what He did from the start & even knew the end.
So believers in God should believe God & how He made the earth & its inhabitants.

They can read science because it gives info., about cures & medicines & many other interesting things.
But as regards to  how the earth  was formed,
all believers should TRUST GOD as His Word holds,
Amen.
And as regards to how old the earth is,
only God Himself knows the answer.

But as science once stated that man descended from apes
& later discarded the theory itself.
Why would God make man descend from apes? God doesn't do absurd things.
God does sensible things.

Like its clearly stated that God first made the birds & the sea animals,
then the land animals,
then man.
So how could birds have descended from dinos??

Then Scripture itself states that creation was made in six days,
 contrary to science, which says, billions of years ago.
And had God made the earth in billions of years & had He allowed evolution,
Scripture would have stated it.
But Scripture DOES NOT state anything about evolution or the earth being made in billions of years.

So, as believers, people must trust God,
who is sensible, perfect & supreme.
Amen.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
• Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us...'"

• Genesis 1:27 — "So God created human beings in his own image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

• Genesis 2:7 — "The LORD God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Genesis 2:2-3
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Genesis 1:21,
21 So God created ...and every living thing ....according to their kinds,
Mark 10:6 — "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Hebrews 11:3 — 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

The Holy Bible also writes about the Nephilim,
but Science does not recognize the Nephilim.
Whereas the Holy Bible tells believers about them.
• Genesis 6:4: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward....
• Numbers 13:33: "And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them".
So, believers should rely on the Holy Bible.

Came across something really interesting.
Sometime earlier had read about a massive marine animal.
Sailors had seen these marine animals 200 years ago.
And they claimed these marine animals to be at least 60-100 feet in length.

But just because they were mere sightings,
so no one believed them,
thinking that most probably they had seen another massive marine animal.
But what they saw, they saw. It was not a part of their imagination nor were they telling a myth nor was it another type of a massive marine animal.
Moreover what they saw & described was totally different.

But until science doesn't confirm anything, many people don't believe many things.

But eventually the species were identified by Science.
Then scientists believed, what several people had seen themselves about 200 years ago.
The species was the colossal squid & the giant squid.
And were about 43-46 feet in length.
And the largest giant squid reached a size of 59 feet.
Some scientists even found squid beak sizes, suggesting that a specimen could be 66-90 feet in length.


 Much earlier (a few hundred years ago), people of that era had seen many other marine animals, which are supposed to be extinct now.
 Sometimes when people saw marine animals, they really may have seen something which had just not been discovered.
So science doesn't have to confirm everything, so that people can believe,

He's just being honest about the facts.  The evidence supports evolution and common descent.  But he prefers his understanding of scripture.  It's an honest position.  And yes, in the article he suggests ways that there might someday be a consistent theory that supports YE creationism.

Quote from: Amo on Yesterday at 10:54:03The man has been teaching YEC theory for decades now. He doesn't think there might be, he has been actively teaching it.

Wrong.  For example, he admits that there is no way to explain the fossil record of whales in a YEC theory.   

Quote from: Amo on Yesterday at 10:54:03Creation geologist John Woodmorappe discusses the tail fluke of whales and says in reference to a study on whale fluke evolution, "It is not only the limbs, but also the tail, which supposedly underwent extensive modifications in order to convert a terrestrial creature into an aquatic one. Entirely omitted in the National Geographic article is the fact that, owing partly to preservation problems, there is a lack of intermediates between tails and flukes."

Woodmorappe is wrong about this...
In the skeletons of living dolphins and whales, the transition from body to tail fluke is marked by a change in their vertebral column: body vertebrae are taller than they are wide, and tail fluke vertebrae are wider than they are tall. We see the same pattern in fossils from early basilosaurid whales, like Dorudon and Basilosaurus, and so know that they had flukes that could help power swimming.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-evolution-of-whales/

Quote from: Amo on Yesterday at 10:54:03Finally, falling back on the outdated "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" argument to argue that a few individual cetaceans that have "limb buds" which get reabsorbed during early embryonic stages as proof of either an evolutionary ancestor or a terrestrial or semiaquatic land creature lineage is lamentable.

They got that wrong, too...

Maiacetus

Quote from: Amo on Yesterday at 11:41:11We all worship a god, even if that god only ends up being ourselves in the end. Let's put a little more context around Darwin's closing statement which you have quoted, to reveal that the god he referred to in his closing sentence, was not the God of Holy Scripture.

At that time, as he mentioned in The Voyage of the Beagle, the officers of the ship joked about his strict Anglican beliefs.   So you got that wrong, too.  Unless you suppose that Anglicans don't believe in the God of the Bible.   

Quote from: Amo on Yesterday at 10:54:03Dr. Brian Thomas of ICR covered some additional features of rorqual whales (blue and minke whales) that show there are too many diverse and finely tuned irreducible complexities in blue and minke whales for them to have evolved all at once: "The precisely arranged body parts of rorqual whales were all required to coexist simultaneously for them to eat and survive, confounding whale evolution and confirming Genesis 1:21."

Well, that's a testable belief.  Let's take a look...

A transitional rorqual whale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protororqualus

If YE is true, it couldn't have lived.  But there it is.

Quote from: Amo on Yesterday at 10:54:03But even more disturbing in this line of thought from a creation perspective is that it overemphasizes the evolutionary "whale ancestors" in the fossil record (alleged semiaquatic whales), or the lack of one for Mysticeti and Odontoceti, prior to the late Eocene. As noted above, there are plausible models for the lack of whale fossils before the late Eocene/early Oligocene.

Genetics shows otherwise:
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Date: June 2022
Molecular evolutionary analyses of tooth genes support sequential loss of enamel and teeth in baleen whales (Mysticeti)

As does the fossil record:
In 1994 a large fossil skull was collected by Ewan Fordyce, Andrew Grebneff and others from the top of a limestone cliff in North Otago. The fossil was dated to between 25 and 26 million years old. The fossil shows a blowhole that is placed about halfway between the front-most end of the skull and the top of the head. The skull also shows a narrow upper jaw or rostrum. These are some of the features that identify the skull as being from an eomysticetid whale and which distinguish it from living modern baleen whales. This large skull would have belonged to an animal that was up to 7 metres long and, based on the shape of the skull, almost certainly had baleen when it was alive. In 2015, the fossil was described as Tokarahia kauaeroa by Robert (Bobby) Boessenecker and Ewan Fordyce and was formally determined to be part of the eomysticetid group of ancient whales. As part of this same study these researchers examined other, similar fossils. One of these closely related Tokarahia fossils was found as a fragmentary skeleton that included a single, isolated tooth.

The discovery of a tooth as part of this skeleton supports the idea that Tokarahia retained adult teeth. The peg-like shape and tiny size of the tooth, coupled with the shape of the skull of Tokarahia, suggested to the researchers that the tooth would have had no function in feeding. The delicate bones of the skull in Tokarahia further suggested it probably wasn't a lunge feeder like living rorquals. Instead, Tokarahia may have used baleen for skim feeding or benthic suction feeding, with its teeth being just a vestigial feature of its jaws.
https://geo.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Geobiology_and_Paleobiology/Fossil_Treasures_of_the_Geology_Museum_(Thomas_Robinson_and_Lee)/04%3A_Vertebrates-_Marine_Mammals/4.05%3A_Transitional_fossil_at_the_dawn_of_baleen_whales

Quote from: Amo on Fri Oct 09, 2026 - 07:32:01So it is a mistake to associate what evolutionists say, with the theory of evolution? Please do expound.

Let's take a look at that.   Tell us what you think scientists say that biological evolution is.   

And then we can see if you got it right.  What have you got?

Quote from: The Barbarian on Yesterday at 18:12:00He's just being honest about the facts.  The evidence supports evolution and common descent.  But he prefers his understanding of scripture.  It's an honest position.  And yes, in the article he suggests ways that there might someday be a consistent theory that supports YE creationism.

Wrong.  For example, he admits that there is no way to explain the fossil record of whales in a YEC theory.

Wrong! He is a YEC who has been teaching YEC for decades now. The fact that he admits of his faith in scripture as the basis does not mean he supports or actually believes in evolution in any way shape or form. Just admitting there is evidence which seems or can be construed to support evolutionists, does not mean he is lending credence to their theory. The fact that you will not admit of your faith driven evolutionary science, does not turn your faith into scientific fact above others simply because they will admit of their faith based scientific work. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

QuoteEarly life and education

Wise was born in 1959 to a fundamentalist Baptist family in Illinois. He was raised in a farming community in Rochelle, Illinois. After high school, Wise graduated from the University of Chicago with a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in geophysics with honors in 1981. He then completed graduate studies at Harvard University, where he earned a Master of Arts (M.A.) in geology and a Ph.D. in paleontology under the supervision of Stephen Jay Gould, a prominent opponent of creationism, in 1989..............

Career
Since the fall of 2009, Wise has been the director of Truett McConnell University's Creation Research Center in Cleveland, Georgia. Between August 2006 and May 2009, he taught at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary as director of the school's Center for Theology and Science, a job in which he was preceded by intelligent design advocate William Dembski. He had previously taught at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee, where he served as Director of the Center for Origins Research and as an Associate Professor of Science for seventeen years.

He served as consultant to the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum which opened in 2007. Timothy H. Heaton, another scientist who studied under Stephen Jay Gould, knows Wise as "a less propaganda-oriented creationist" than Ken Ham, the leader of Answers in Genesis, and said that Wise's influence on the displays was apparent.

QuoteWoodmorappe is wrong about this...
In the skeletons of living dolphins and whales, the transition from body to tail fluke is marked by a change in their vertebral column: body vertebrae are taller than they are wide, and tail fluke vertebrae are wider than they are tall. We see the same pattern in fossils from early basilosaurid whales, like Dorudon and Basilosaurus, and so know that they had flukes that could help power swimming.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-evolution-of-whales/

They got that wrong, too...

Maiacetus

Of course they did, if they weren't wrong, you wouldn't be right. Would you? Never mind that most all scientists of any discipline always believe they are right, until they are proved wrong. As has happened countless times over within the scientific fields.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Yesterday at 18:16:21At that time, as he mentioned in The Voyage of the Beagle, the officers of the ship joked about his strict Anglican beliefs.   So you got that wrong, too.  Unless you suppose that Anglicans don't believe in the God of the Bible.

The article shared concerning his loss of faith was not addressing one specific time of his life, but rather his journey of change of faith over the course of his entire life. There are many professed Christians of all denominations, who create their own god's from within them, by denying what Holy Scripture simply states and replacing it with what they think it really means. Which includes all deep time evolutionists within every denomination as I see it. What they see , simply is not there anywhere, but only contradicted by scripture if anything.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Yesterday at 18:20:15Well, that's a testable belief.  Let's take a look...

A transitional rorqual whale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protororqualus

If YE is true, it couldn't have lived.  But there it is.

No sense in looking at the argument. As I am already completely convinced that the issues of complexity and irreducible complexity have totally trashed the fairy tale imaginings of undirected biological evolution. It is an impossibility but for those of extreme faith in randomness to effect unimaginable complexity, and or those who propose such nonsense as actual science.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Yesterday at 18:27:49Genetics shows otherwise:
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Date: June 2022
Molecular evolutionary analyses of tooth genes support sequential loss of enamel and teeth in baleen whales (Mysticeti)

As does the fossil record:
In 1994 a large fossil skull was collected by Ewan Fordyce, Andrew Grebneff and others from the top of a limestone cliff in North Otago. The fossil was dated to between 25 and 26 million years old. The fossil shows a blowhole that is placed about halfway between the front-most end of the skull and the top of the head. The skull also shows a narrow upper jaw or rostrum. These are some of the features that identify the skull as being from an eomysticetid whale and which distinguish it from living modern baleen whales. This large skull would have belonged to an animal that was up to 7 metres long and, based on the shape of the skull, almost certainly had baleen when it was alive. In 2015, the fossil was described as Tokarahia kauaeroa by Robert (Bobby) Boessenecker and Ewan Fordyce and was formally determined to be part of the eomysticetid group of ancient whales. As part of this same study these researchers examined other, similar fossils. One of these closely related Tokarahia fossils was found as a fragmentary skeleton that included a single, isolated tooth.

The discovery of a tooth as part of this skeleton supports the idea that Tokarahia retained adult teeth. The peg-like shape and tiny size of the tooth, coupled with the shape of the skull of Tokarahia, suggested to the researchers that the tooth would have had no function in feeding. The delicate bones of the skull in Tokarahia further suggested it probably wasn't a lunge feeder like living rorquals. Instead, Tokarahia may have used baleen for skim feeding or benthic suction feeding, with its teeth being just a vestigial feature of its jaws.
https://geo.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Geobiology_and_Paleobiology/Fossil_Treasures_of_the_Geology_Museum_(Thomas_Robinson_and_Lee)/04%3A_Vertebrates-_Marine_Mammals/4.05%3A_Transitional_fossil_at_the_dawn_of_baleen_whales

So say those who until recently, thought most of DNA was just unused junk, and still believe soft tissues on fossils can last hundreds of millions of years. Just to mention a two of a vast sea of mistakes and wrongs already corrected even by themsleves over and over again. Simply defending their faith, by defining all that they see according to that faith, while denying or rejecting all that contradicts it. As though they had never been wrong before, and their present observations are therefore unquestionably correct. Not!

Quote from: The Barbarian on Yesterday at 21:48:11Let's take a look at that.   Tell us what you think scientists say that biological evolution is.   

And then we can see if you got it right.  What have you got?

That would of course depend on which kind of evolutionist we are talking about. As they are not all the same of course. Or of the same mind concerning all things. As there is an obvious difference between atheistic evolutionists, and theistic evolutionists, and others no doubt as well.

Quote from: Amo on Yesterday at 10:54:03None of it means anything that is only suggested in the quotes themselves.

It's merely evidence showing that YE assumptions are wrong.

He's just being honest about the facts.  The evidence supports evolution and common descent.  But he prefers his understanding of scripture.  It's an honest position.  And yes, in the article he suggests ways that there might someday be a consistent theory that supports YE creationism.

Wrong.  For example, he admits that there is no way to explain the fossil record of whales in a YEC theory.

Quote from: Amo on Today at 12:18:26Wrong!

From Dr. Wise's article:
At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.

Quote from: Amo on Yesterday at 10:54:03Using the example of the 450 dolphins above, why was only one found with "vestigial" hind limbs? And out of the many whales killed for food, accidentally killed, or beached over the past 100 years, why have so few "vestigial" limbs been reported?

Because, although all whales have genes for legs, those genes are normally suppressed, much as the genes for tails are suppressed in humans and other apes.  A mutation can interfere with the supression, and then rudimentary legs or tails appear.

That's how it works.   Such things are entirely inconsistent with YE-invented notions of special creation, but are entirely consistent with God's creation.

Let's take a look at that.   Tell us what you think scientists say that biological evolution is.   

And then we can see if you got it right.  What have you got?

Quote from: Amo on Today at 12:42:59That would of course depend on which kind of evolutionist we are talking about.

No.   Scientists have one definition for biological evolution. You have no idea what it is, do you?   Hint: it's what we observe going on in living populations constantly.  You could look it up if you have no idea.

Quote from: Amo on Today at 12:42:59As there is an obvious difference between atheistic evolutionists, and theistic evolutionists, and others no doubt as well.

Not about biological evolution.   Atheistic scientists and theistic scientists use the same definition.   

It would be worth your time to learn what it is.  Pretty hard to argue against something when you can't even say what it is.

Quote from: Amo on Today at 12:37:21So say those who until recently, thought most of DNA was just unused junk,

When I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, there were journal articles on the functions of non-coding DNA, which is what creationists call "Junk DNA."   

Quote from: Amo on Today at 12:31:11No sense in looking at the argument. As I am already completely convinced that the issues of complexity and irreducible complexity have totally trashed the fairy tale imaginings of undirected biological evolution.

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't undirected.    And since the evolution of complex, irreducibly complex systems has been directly observed, your assumption is demonstrably wrong.   Want to learn about that?

Quote from: Amo on Today at 12:18:26Of course they did, if they weren't wrong, you wouldn't be right. Would you? Never mind that most all scientists of any discipline always believe they are right, until they are proved wrong. As has happened countless times over within the scientific fields.

The major difference is that even though we have fossils of things YE creationists have declared impossible, few YE creationists will admit that they were wrong.  The difference is simple: