Transitional / intermediate

[Nicki]

I think the idea is that there should be many more transitional forms (with very little change between them) in between the fairly different creatures that we have fossils for - we just have a 'fully formed' this or that animal with noticeable gaps from one to the next.

This is a valid point, the first one on this topic which makes some sense. If every animal is fully formed and adapted to its environment, how come we have dozens of fossils of land-dwelling, unfeathered, unflying "ancestors" of birds, and dozens of tree-dwelling, feathered, flying birds, but remarkably few fossils of animals adapted to environments intermediate between the land and the trees.

Actually putting it like that helps to explain the reason. There is a lot of land, and there are a lot of trees, but the ecological niches that require a reptile with feathers, or a bird with four claws, are few. There are some - even today we see the remarkable hoatzin - and before competition from other birds and mammals outperformed them there were more, but the evolutionary bottleneck, both environmentally and in time, meant that there really were fewer intermediate species between reptiles and birds, which consequently left fewer fossils.

Something similar can be seen with the organisms intermediate between fish and reptiles. There is a lot of water, and a lot of land, but rather less environment between the two, which is perhaps why there are many fewer riparian amphibians, even today, than fish or reptiles.

That could be right, but I'm talking about even smaller changes. How many generations would it take for feathers to develop in a whole population? Quite a large number, I'd say - but as Audie has said before, most organisms die without being fossilized and there might be many fossils that haven't been found yet.

In a whole population..like if everyone on earth started having babies who were part of a genetic change to, say, feathers?

It doesnt work that way.

Think of the fly that was resistant to DDT. After a bit, all flies would be descendants of the resistant strain. The whole population didnt develop it, they inherited it.

That was what I meant really. Eventually (after many generations) a population would have developed a change. I talked about natural selection a bit in the evolution thread.

[Audie]

And How does 'my reading' make the whole book a phony? Cause I'm quoting God's Word -- not my own. That's what those quotation marks are indicating. As anyone who has a NJK version can verify.

It is pretty simple. There was no world wide flood. So, if the book really-really says there was, then the book is, what?

I know you quoted what you believe to be God's word. And that you believe it means as you say.

A couple of probs., tho. One is that the book was, you know, compiled by, yes, People. Guys. Not Gods. The discussed what to put in, what to leave out, which version to go with.

Another lil prob has to do with literal reading. That is extensively discussed
elsewhere. I will just leave it with that if you are going 100% literal, then Jesus is a lamb. Or else a door?

But if you dont go 100%, then where is the line?

A Jesuit told me, in connection with something I asked him that God gave us brains with which to think. A thinking person wont go Jesus=lamb.

In Kings, there is a part where you can easily take it that the value of Pi is 3.0, and if there were no outside info showing that is the value of Pi, few would interpret it otherwise. Certainly, no way to get 3.14 from the bible.

Think, and cross check with outside source seem like good takeaway lessons
whether it is politics, advertising, stock market advice, or religious teachings.

Of course, when a person cross checks as to whether there really-really was a flood, well, it is simply impossible to justify the belief that there was.
Not if one is to retain a trace of intellectual honesty.

You noticed perhaps the shameful display ab put on, trying to avoid the fact that the polar ice deeply predates any possible flood.

First the ice floated, but neither melted nor broke up in a year, then settled back zactly in place. All the glaciers in the mountains, greenland ice cap, all right back where it had been.

THEN, he had it that the ice is stuck down. A pure invention, like the previous one. Glaciers move. They slide along the bedrock. They are not stuck down.

NEXT, he had it that the top layer broke off, like a layer of cake; that floated about, while the rest stayed stuck. Then it all settled back right where it had been.

That is the sort of thing one is reduced to if the matter is carefully examined, and the world wide flood idea cannot be abandoned for ideological reasons.

(I have an uncle who is an old hard line Maoist. Try talking sense to HIM!)

Anyway, in summary, if the flood story is absolutely essential, then, since there was no flood, what does that do to the rest of the book?

[Audie]

I think the idea is that there should be many more transitional forms (with very little change between them) in between the fairly different creatures that we have fossils for - we just have a 'fully formed' this or that animal with noticeable gaps from one to the next.

This is a valid point, the first one on this topic which makes some sense. If every animal is fully formed and adapted to its environment, how come we have dozens of fossils of land-dwelling, unfeathered, unflying "ancestors" of birds, and dozens of tree-dwelling, feathered, flying birds, but remarkably few fossils of animals adapted to environments intermediate between the land and the trees.

Actually putting it like that helps to explain the reason. There is a lot of land, and there are a lot of trees, but the ecological niches that require a reptile with feathers, or a bird with four claws, are few. There are some - even today we see the remarkable hoatzin - and before competition from other birds and mammals outperformed them there were more, but the evolutionary bottleneck, both environmentally and in time, meant that there really were fewer intermediate species between reptiles and birds, which consequently left fewer fossils.

Something similar can be seen with the organisms intermediate between fish and reptiles. There is a lot of water, and a lot of land, but rather less environment between the two, which is perhaps why there are many fewer riparian amphibians, even today, than fish or reptiles.

That could be right, but I'm talking about even smaller changes. How many generations would it take for feathers to develop in a whole population? Quite a large number, I'd say - but as Audie has said before, most organisms die without being fossilized and there might be many fossils that haven't been found yet.

In a whole population..like if everyone on earth started having babies who were part of a genetic change to, say, feathers?

It doesnt work that way.

Think of the fly that was resistant to DDT. After a bit, all flies would be descendants of the resistant strain. The whole population didnt develop it, they inherited it.

That was what I meant really. Eventually (after many generations) a population would have developed a change. I talked about natural selection a bit in the evolution thread.

As long as you get it that it is not every individual starting simultaneously to have different offspring!

It is more like that someone will exploit a breakthrough and expand their
beachhead. Or something.

[abelcainsbrother]

I think the idea is that there should be many more transitional forms (with very little change between them) in between the fairly different creatures that we have fossils for - we just have a 'fully formed' this or that animal with noticeable gaps from one to the next.

This is a valid point, the first one on this topic which makes some sense. If every animal is fully formed and adapted to its environment, how come we have dozens of fossils of land-dwelling, unfeathered, unflying "ancestors" of birds, and dozens of tree-dwelling, feathered, flying birds, but remarkably few fossils of animals adapted to environments intermediate between the land and the trees.

Actually putting it like that helps to explain the reason. There is a lot of land, and there are a lot of trees, but the ecological niches that require a reptile with feathers, or a bird with four claws, are few. There are some - even today we see the remarkable hoatzin - and before competition from other birds and mammals outperformed them there were more, but the evolutionary bottleneck, both environmentally and in time, meant that there really were fewer intermediate species between reptiles and birds, which consequently left fewer fossils.

Something similar can be seen with the organisms intermediate between fish and reptiles. There is a lot of water, and a lot of land, but rather less environment between the two, which is perhaps why there are many fewer riparian amphibians, even today, than fish or reptiles.

That could be right, but I'm talking about even smaller changes. How many generations would it take for feathers to develop in a whole population? Quite a large number, I'd say - but as Audie has said before, most organisms die without being fossilized and there might be many fossils that haven't been found yet.

In a whole population..like if everyone on earth started having babies who were part of a genetic change to, say, feathers?

It doesnt work that way.

Think of the fly that was resistant to DDT. After a bit, all flies would be descendants of the resistant strain. The whole population didnt develop it, they inherited it.

You cannot use adaptation for evidence life evolves,which you are trying to do.It cannot cause life to evolve because it has adapted. And you don't have to be in a science lab to prove life can adapt. We have examples of life adapting like eskimos,bacteria,etc and they remained the same kind of life after adapting,just like the flies did. So what! The flies adapted they will still always be flies just like Eskimos who adapted to live in the extreme cold will always be humans even after adapting like the flies remained flies. You're just stating the obvious and using evolution imagination to try to fill in the gaps of your knowledge - Evolution is true,you've just got to believe it brother.Have faith in it.

But yet the Lord of all creation cannot and did not flood the earth,eventhough the whole earth is flooded now with over 70% of water covering its surface. You have evidence all around.

[crochet1949]

And How does 'my reading' make the whole book a phony? Cause I'm quoting God's Word -- not my own. That's what those quotation marks are indicating. As anyone who has a NJK version can verify.

It is pretty simple. There was no world wide flood. So, if the book really-really says there was, then the book is, what?

I know you quoted what you believe to be God's word. And that you believe it means as you say.

A couple of probs., tho. One is that the book was, you know, compiled by, yes, People. Guys. Not Gods. The discussed what to put in, what to leave out, which version to go with.

Another lil prob has to do with literal reading. That is extensively discussed
elsewhere. I will just leave it with that if you are going 100% literal, then Jesus is a lamb. Or else a door?

But if you dont go 100%, then where is the line?

A Jesuit told me, in connection with something I asked him that God gave us brains with which to think. A thinking person wont go Jesus=lamb.

In Kings, there is a part where you can easily take it that the value of Pi is 3.0, and if there were no outside info showing that is the value of Pi, few would interpret it otherwise. Certainly, no way to get 3.14 from the bible.

Think, and cross check with outside source seem like good takeaway lessons
whether it is politics, advertising, stock market advice, or religious teachings.

Of course, when a person cross checks as to whether there really-really was a flood, well, it is simply impossible to justify the belief that there was.
Not if one is to retain a trace of intellectual honesty.

You noticed perhaps the shameful display ab put on, trying to avoid the fact that the polar ice deeply predates any possible flood.

First the ice floated, but neither melted nor broke up in a year, then settled back zactly in place. All the glaciers in the mountains, greenland ice cap, all right back where it had been.

THEN, he had it that the ice is stuck down. A pure invention, like the previous one. Glaciers move. They slide along the bedrock. They are not stuck down.

NEXT, he had it that the top layer broke off, like a layer of cake; that floated about, while the rest stayed stuck. Then it all settled back right where it had been.

That is the sort of thing one is reduced to if the matter is carefully examined, and the world wide flood idea cannot be abandoned for ideological reasons.

(I have an uncle who is an old hard line Maoist. Try talking sense to HIM!)

Anyway, in summary, if the flood story is absolutely essential, then, since there was no flood, what does that do to the rest of the book?

Will start out with -- 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

The Bible - God's Word IS correct -- which means that there Was a world-wide flood exactly as He has told us.

The Bible Did come to mankind over 1500 yrs or so. It was Not originally written in English nor come to 'us' already printed in nicely bound book form. And that is where Translators come in. And there Are at least several versions of God's Word -- mostly they say the very same thing, except the RCC Bible Does have some additional books included.

Anyone who reads knows that there are various types of literature -- history, poetry, allegorical , etc. in the Bible. And parables are in the New Testament, also.

And, yes, Jesus Christ was the perfect Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world. For That we should be thankful for. And John 10:7 "Then Jesus said to them again, Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. vs 9 "I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture."

vs 11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep." vs 14 "I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own."

Yes, God Has given all of us a brain to think with. We Need to use our brains -- common sense. The context of the material being read. A thinking person will realize the connection between Jesus and the Lamb of God.

Expound more about your comment about Kings ? Pi -- 3.0. because Pi = 3.14 ?

Ah, yes, your comment regarding 'retaining a trace of intellectual honesty". In regards to the world-wide flood. Ya know the concept of the glass being half Full or half Empty depending on a person's point of view. You and I can look at exactly the same 'thing' and come up with totally different conclusions. Which we Have done.

And, yes, you and ACB did have a differing opinion. But a 'shameful display' ?! No, he simply disagreed with you.

So, in summary -- the reason For world-wide flood is important -- Jesus Christ dying on the cross, shedding His blood on that cross for our sins and rising again bodily / essential. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ / essential. Jesus Christ being the Son of God / essential.

[Audacity]

Will start out with -- 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

The Bible - God's Word IS correct -- which means that there Was a world-wide flood exactly as He has told us.

So,was God's Word correct when it said

2KI 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

OR was it correct when it said

2CH 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.


Was it correct when it said

Ezra 2:15
The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four.

OR was it correct when it said

Nehemiah 7:20
The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and five.


Was it correct when it said

2 Samuel 8:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen.


OR was it correct when it said

1 Chronicles 18:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen.


Was it correct when it said

1 Machabees 4:28
Lysias gathered together threescore thousand chosen men, and five thousand horsemen.

OR was it correct when it said

2 Machabees 11:2
Lysias ... Gathered together fourscore thousand men, and all the horsemen, and came against the Jews.

[crochet1949]

Will start out with -- 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

The Bible - God's Word IS correct -- which means that there Was a world-wide flood exactly as He has told us.

So,was God's Word correct when it said

2KI 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

OR was it correct when it said

2CH 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.


Was it correct when it said

Ezra 2:15
The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four.

OR was it correct when it said

Nehemiah 7:20
The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and five.


Was it correct when it said

2 Samuel 8:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen.


OR was it correct when it said

1 Chronicles 18:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen.


Was it correct when it said

1 Machabees 4:28
Lysias gathered together threescore thousand chosen men, and five thousand horsemen.

OR was it correct when it said

2 Machabees 11:2
Lysias ... Gathered together fourscore thousand men, and all the horsemen, and came against the Jews.

And Where did you find all those discrepancies. Was it a result of your own personal researching? Just wondering.

[Audacity]

Will start out with -- 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

The Bible - God's Word IS correct -- which means that there Was a world-wide flood exactly as He has told us.

So,was God's Word correct when it said

2KI 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

OR was it correct when it said

2CH 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.


Was it correct when it said

Ezra 2:15
The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four.

OR was it correct when it said

Nehemiah 7:20
The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and five.


Was it correct when it said

2 Samuel 8:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen.


OR was it correct when it said

1 Chronicles 18:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen.


Was it correct when it said

1 Machabees 4:28
Lysias gathered together threescore thousand chosen men, and five thousand horsemen.

OR was it correct when it said

2 Machabees 11:2
Lysias ... Gathered together fourscore thousand men, and all the horsemen, and came against the Jews.

And Where did you find all those discrepancies. Was it a result of your own personal researching? Just wondering.

They pop up in Google searches. In any case, which of the contradictions in each pair is the correct Word of God?

[Audie]

The Bible - God's Word IS correct -- which means that there Was a world-wide flood exactly as He has told us.

And it is God's correct book because....?

Yes, God Has given all of us a brain to think with. We Need to use our brains -- common sense.

Why yes; I recommend it to all.

Expound more about your comment about Kings ? Pi -- 3.0. because Pi = 3.14 ?

Diameter 10, circumference 30. That gives a ratio of 3:1 which is not correct, is in fact impossible. Do you understand why I brought this up?

vs 11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep." vs 14 "I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own."

You are welcome to quote as you like. It is a bit pointless, tho. My pal Beelzebub and I do know scripture.

Ah, yes, your comment regarding 'retaining a trace of intellectual honesty". In regards to the world-wide flood. Ya know the concept of the glass being half Full or half Empty depending on a person's point of view.

No. That does not apply. Not on any level. We can all have a pov.
We dont each get our own reality and facts.

You and I can look at exactly the same 'thing' and come up with totally different conclusions. Which we Have done.

No, that is not so either. You have only a faint and vague idea of what I am talking about in geology or biology. That is ok; but we are not equals.

Conclusion based on information is usually worth more than one based on opinion, dont you think so?

And, yes, you and ACB did have a differing opinion. But a 'shameful display' ?! No, he simply disagreed with you.

So you see no shame in just making up excuses out of thin air, one after another, each different, each contradicting the other? Guess I am old school that way, looks shameful to me.

There is a big difference between "disagreeing" and "fabrication". I do believe you know that, even if our friend does not.

In court they take a very dim view of it, even have a special name and prescribed penalties for it. Also-once a person has shown they are unreliable and willing to fabricate evidence, nothing they say has any value. You know?



Anything I said about the subject is based directly on observed fact. I dont think you are doing me or yourself credit saying it is same-same.

So, in summary -- the reason For world-wide flood is important -- Jesus Christ dying on the cross, shedding His blood on that cross for our sins and rising again bodily / essential. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ / essential. Jesus Christ being the Son of God / essentia

And yet, and yet, lo and many a good sincere Christian is able to accept on faith that that story, and other enigmatic words in the bible mean some thing, that their faith in Jesus is justified, without being put in the position of saying that up is down, in order to keep their faith.

[crochet1949]

Will start out with -- 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

The Bible - God's Word IS correct -- which means that there Was a world-wide flood exactly as He has told us.

So,was God's Word correct when it said

2KI 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

OR was it correct when it said

2CH 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.


Was it correct when it said

Ezra 2:15
The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four.

OR was it correct when it said

Nehemiah 7:20
The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and five.


Was it correct when it said

2 Samuel 8:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen.


OR was it correct when it said

1 Chronicles 18:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen.


Was it correct when it said

1 Machabees 4:28
Lysias gathered together threescore thousand chosen men, and five thousand horsemen.

OR was it correct when it said

2 Machabees 11:2
Lysias ... Gathered together fourscore thousand men, and all the horsemen, and came against the Jews.

I Did look up the first two passages / NKJ -- at the bottom of the page in 2 Chronicles 36:9 there are some footnotes -- one is about 36:9 "Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint, Syriac, and 2 Kings 24:8 read 'eighteen'. So the difference is being acknowledged. Does that negate the fact of Johoiachin's reign? No. A difference of 10 yrs of age.

[crochet1949]

So - actually -- it was Not through Your Own reading that you noticed those differences.

Do you realize that if two people were witnesses to the same car accident -- that the police would Probably get different 'eye witness' accounts of what happened.

In the 1/2 Machabees differences -- does it mean that Lysias Didn't go against the Jews? The event Did Happen.

[Audie]

So direct contradictions are ok, they are both true or it does not matter if neither is true, it is still the word of god.

[crochet1949]

So direct contradictions are ok, they are both true or it does not matter if neither is true, it is still the word of god.

No one says that the events Didn't happen.

[Audacity]

I Did look up the first two passages / NKJ -- at the bottom of the page in 2 Chronicles 36:9 there are some footnotes -- one is about 36:9 "Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint, Syriac, and 2 Kings 24:8 read 'eighteen'. So the difference is being acknowledged. Does that negate the fact of Johoiachin's reign? No. A difference of 10 yrs of age.

Not sure what your point is here, but I'm still waiting to hear which of the two contradictory versions in each pair is God's Word.

Do you realize that if two people were witnesses to the same car accident -- that the police would Probably get different 'eye witness' accounts of what happened.

So what? Are you saying that the differences in each of the pairs is due to subjective reading? That the words "eighteen" and "eight" printed on the pages of the Bible may not actually be "eighteen" and "eight"?

In the 1/2 Machabees differences -- does it mean that Lysias Didn't go against the Jews? The event Did Happen.

So what? Do you not grasp the fact that what I'm referring to are the differences in each pair that I've highlighted and underlined in red?

[abelcainsbrother]

Will start out with -- 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

The Bible - God's Word IS correct -- which means that there Was a world-wide flood exactly as He has told us.

So,was God's Word correct when it said

2KI 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

OR was it correct when it said

2CH 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.


Was it correct when it said

Ezra 2:15
The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four.

OR was it correct when it said

Nehemiah 7:20
The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and five.


Was it correct when it said

2 Samuel 8:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen.


OR was it correct when it said

1 Chronicles 18:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen.


Was it correct when it said

1 Machabees 4:28
Lysias gathered together threescore thousand chosen men, and five thousand horsemen.

OR was it correct when it said

2 Machabees 11:2
Lysias ... Gathered together fourscore thousand men, and all the horsemen, and came against the Jews.

And Where did you find all those discrepancies. Was it a result of your own personal researching? Just wondering.

They pop up in Google searches. In any case, which of the contradictions in each pair is the correct Word of God?

Just because you make it into a contradiction does not mean what you are implying is correct. The bible was written by 53 men over a span of about 2500 years and they did not know each other,they lived at different times,in most cases.The books of the bible were written at different times. And they don't change the truth of God's word at all. You would have more of a reason to be sceptical if they were exactly worded. It actually gives the bible even more credibility that they are not word for word identical. What you've overlooked though is how the books of the bible all fit together kind of like a jigsaw puzzle and when put all together gives us a better picture than if we only had one book,etc. Put it all together and study it and you get better understanding and it is a miracle that these books were written by 53 men over a span of about 2500 years,not living at the same time and places and not knowing each other yet they all go together like a jigsaw puzzle. You must put scriptures together throughout both the old and new testament to have better understanding. I mean you can find Jesus on just about every page of the bible and the whole bible is pointing us to Jesus. You can find Jesus reading Genesis 1 because Jesus is the light of the world that shown into darkness.