Genesis, and Science, Predict Marine Life

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
125,025
60,512
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. First, an explosion, light- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find:
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

a. Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’

b. Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’





2. Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.





3. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Cambrian: The "Age of Trilobites" and the Cambrian Fauna

a. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . . I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

4. In 1909, a century after the birth of Darwin, Charles Walcott discovered an amazing find in the Burgess Shale. There, he uncovered a huge array of fossils not found earlier. “The Burgess Shale contains the best record we have of Cambrian animal fossils. The locality reveals the presence of creatures originating from the Cambrian explosion, an evolutionary burst of animal origins dating 545 to 525 million years ago. During this period, life was restricted to the world's oceans. The land was barren, uninhabited,…” The Burgess Shale

a. So ended Darwin’s idea of a gradual evolutionary history!

5. That ‘Cambrian explosion? “…between about 570 and 530 million years ago, another burst of diversification occurred, with the eventual appearance of the lineages of almost all animals living today. This stunning and unique evolutionary flowering is termed the "Cambrian explosion," taking the name of the geological age in whose early part it occurred.”
Evolution: Library: The Cambrian Explosion





6. Is there a possible explanation, sans the hand of God?
Sure....here's one:

“The Cambrian Explosion is usually characterized as the sudden rapid appearance of complex multicellular organisms in the fossil record. In the strata below the Cambrian, one does not find such fossils, and then in a flash of geological time, large numbers of fossils, of many varieties, are to be found in the Cambrian strata….

In his thesis, "In the Blink of an Eye," Oxford zoologhist, Dr. Andrew Parker proposes that the acquisition of vision by trilobites was the root cause of the Cambrian Explosion…. trilobites developed eyes that could produce good images of their surroundings. Suddenly, trilobites could now see all of these tiny bits of protein crawling around in worm-like bodies, providing the possibility for hearty meals…. once the trilobites developed sophisticated eyes, a dramatic arms race developed. Suddenly, just remaining still when a predator approached no longer worked, because sunlight streams down upon everything and makes everything visible.

Under extreme selective pressures, Precambrian prey began to develop defensive armor in the form of hard exoskeletons with nasty spikes and spines to ward off potential attacks by the pesky trilobites…. the arrival of active predation ... changed everything. With active predation, the 35 already existing phyla were under extreme selective pressures to adopt expensive defensive measures in the form of hard parts, and these expensive hard parts were not needed during the billions of years of passive predation in the Precambrian, so there were no selective pressures to form them.” SoftwarePhysics: An IT Perspective of the Cambrian Explosion





7. So, it does appear that Genesis was precisely correct, and vast numbers of marine creatures appeared.

God’s call to ‘bring forth abundantly’…or perhaps the development of eyes….your choice.

In either case, life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?

What are the odds?
 
You seems to be interested in creationist/evolutionist debate. Can you tell me what is the solid evidence for evolution or that seems so?
 
You seems to be interested in creationist/evolutionist debate. Can you tell me what is the solid evidence for evolution or that seems so?

1. “…tell me what is the solid evidence for evolution…”
Now…why are you doing such a mean thing??

You’re asking ME to make the argument for ‘evolution”??? How low can you go??

You see, due to the preponderance of evolution devotees here and throughout secular society, I’ve made it my mission to point out the lacunae in the ‘theory.’ And I like doing that.



2. But, physicists have progressed so far that they are confident of the history of the universe back to the first thousandth of a second….and biologists are certain that they can trace all living things back to some universal common ancestor that lived around 3,600 million years ago.

I’ve always savored the role of pointing out that none know what happened during the first millionth of a second….or, more pointedly….before that millionth!
Or, questioning how the first living organism, if that’s not redundant, emerged from the mud-pie of organic compounds.




3. My endeavor is to remind the masses, bombarded with Leftist propaganda, deathly afraid that they might be called ‘stupid,’ or worse, if they question evolution or champion a belief in God, that it is ‘evolution- the theory,’ rather than ‘evolution- the fact.’ I suspect that, deep down, they recognize the weakness of their ‘faith,’ and that is why they become so very angry when one espouses religion.


a. So…I’m going to request that you release me from the mission of defending 'evolution' (after all, it is so very easy, just look at the dim-wits who do so) …..and allow me to continue on my argumentative way.
 
You seems to be interested in creationist/evolutionist debate. Can you tell me what is the solid evidence for evolution or that seems so?

But.....if I were making the argument, I'd be sure to include this:

"As predicted by preliminary studies, the human and chimpanzee genetic codes are essentially 99 percent identical, a testament to how fundamentally similar the two species remain. At the same time, it is powerful evidence that seemingly modest changes in molecular code can lead to very different stations in the web of life."
Scientists Complete Genetic Map of the Chimpanzee
 
So the guys who wrote Genesis guessed that the seas came before the sea creatures?

Wow, what genius!!

What was their second guess? That all the sea creatures were formed, and then God created seas to put them in?
 
So the guys who wrote Genesis guessed that the seas came before the sea creatures?

Wow, what genius!!

What was their second guess? That all the sea creatures were formed, and then God created seas to put them in?

Amazing that you are even cognizant of the word 'genius,' itself.

Surely it has never been used in conjunction with your name.


BTW....the order stated in Genesis is seas- plants- abundant sea life.
And, sure enough, science found cyanobacteria remains some 3,600 million years old.
Cambrian sea life: 521 million years back.




I take it back....bet lots of folks refer to you as 'genius,' and 'Einstein.'
And, bet, you think them serious.
 
But.....if I were making the argument, I'd be sure to include this:

"As predicted by preliminary studies, the human and chimpanzee genetic codes are essentially 99 percent identical, a testament to how fundamentally similar the two species remain. At the same time, it is powerful evidence that seemingly modest changes in molecular code can lead to very different stations in the web of life."
Scientists Complete Genetic Map of the Chimpanzee
and what's your counter-argument ?
 
You seems to be interested in creationist/evolutionist debate. Can you tell me what is the solid evidence for evolution or that seems so?

1. “…tell me what is the solid evidence for evolution…”
Now…why are you doing such a mean thing??

You’re asking ME to make the argument for ‘evolution”??? How low can you go??

You see, due to the preponderance of evolution devotees here and throughout secular society, I’ve made it my mission to point out the lacunae in the ‘theory.’ And I like doing that.



2. But, physicists have progressed so far that they are confident of the history of the universe back to the first thousandth of a second….and biologists are certain that they can trace all living things back to some universal common ancestor that lived around 3,600 million years ago.

I’ve always savored the role of pointing out that none know what happened during the first millionth of a second….or, more pointedly….before that millionth!
Or, questioning how the first living organism, if that’s not redundant, emerged from the mud-pie of organic compounds.




3. My endeavor is to remind the masses, bombarded with Leftist propaganda, deathly afraid that they might be called ‘stupid,’ or worse, if they question evolution or champion a belief in God, that it is ‘evolution- the theory,’ rather than ‘evolution- the fact.’ I suspect that, deep down, they recognize the weakness of their ‘faith,’ and that is why they become so very angry when one espouses religion.


a. So…I’m going to request that you release me from the mission of defending 'evolution' (after all, it is so very easy, just look at the dim-wits who do so) …..and allow me to continue on my argumentative way.

Psst! Ask him about Jesus and Abraham!
 
But.....if I were making the argument, I'd be sure to include this:

"As predicted by preliminary studies, the human and chimpanzee genetic codes are essentially 99 percent identical, a testament to how fundamentally similar the two species remain. At the same time, it is powerful evidence that seemingly modest changes in molecular code can lead to very different stations in the web of life."
Scientists Complete Genetic Map of the Chimpanzee
and what's your counter-argument ?


Now, when you referred to 'evolution,' you didn't specify Darwinian evolution.
Before Darwin there were theories, but they generally accepted that God set the process in motion.

1. The brilliant Rene Descartes postulated that, rather than a rapid seven day timeline, the sequence that resulted in the formation of the earth was far more eventful. “1637. Rene Descartes: Discours de la Methode. Descartes constructed a history of the Earth which was quite influential; it was the starting point for many later cosmogonies. Some of the main points of his system were that the Earth formed as a fiery ball, that when it cooled a crust formed over the abyssal waters, and that this crust collapsed, releasing massive volumes of water.”
Changing Views of the History of the Earth

While it runs counter to the literal view of the Bible....it probably is consistent with the ideas accepted by most Christians....and Jews....today.

And here's why:

a. Interestingly, Descartes continues to see the hand of God in the creation. In chapter six of ‘Le Monde,’ he states that at the first instant of creation, God provides the parts with different properties, and after that He does not intervene supernaturally to regulate same. http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/08972/sample/9780521808972ws.pdf



2. The accepted mechanism of evolution is the mutation. There is a three letter code embedded in the DNA of each nucleus, and this DNA specifies which amino acid is to be added to a protein.

A segment of the DNA, a gene, dictates which the order, indirectly, via RNA.

UGU cystine, and GUG, valine.

If the code is ugu gug ugu, the protein would read cys val cys

But...if onoe base is lost, the code would now be gug ugu gug.

Easier to see like this: "the red dog ran.." .would change to "her edd ogr an....."

It no longer makes sense...which is why most mutations are lethal.

But some would produce new proteins, new enzymes....changes in an organism.



3. My point? As Descartes states, if "at the first instant of creation, God provides the parts with different properties, and after that He does not intervene supernaturally to regulate same," then the mutation process simply provides for evolution.

And it fits natural selection because mutations provide for variation.

4. BTW....lots of things, such as drugs, and radiation, influence that base sequence of genes.


So....wadda ya' think?
 
1. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. First, an explosion, light- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …
Your made up version of the order of creation doesn't even match the bible let alone science!!! The bible says the heavens and Earth and the oceans were created IN DARKNESS before the creation of light.

Genesis 1
New International Version (NIV)
The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
 
Now, when you referred to 'evolution,' you didn't specify Darwinian evolution.
Before Darwin there were theories, but they generally accepted that God set the process in motion.

1. The brilliant Rene Descartes postulated that, rather than a rapid seven day timeline, the sequence that resulted in the formation of the earth was far more eventful. “1637. Rene Descartes: Discours de la Methode. Descartes constructed a history of the Earth which was quite influential; it was the starting point for many later cosmogonies. Some of the main points of his system were that the Earth formed as a fiery ball, that when it cooled a crust formed over the abyssal waters, and that this crust collapsed, releasing massive volumes of water.”
Changing Views of the History of the Earth

While it runs counter to the literal view of the Bible....it probably is consistent with the ideas accepted by most Christians....and Jews....today.

And here's why:

a. Interestingly, Descartes continues to see the hand of God in the creation. In chapter six of ‘Le Monde,’ he states that at the first instant of creation, God provides the parts with different properties, and after that He does not intervene supernaturally to regulate same. http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/08972/sample/9780521808972ws.pdf



2. The accepted mechanism of evolution is the mutation. There is a three letter code embedded in the DNA of each nucleus, and this DNA specifies which amino acid is to be added to a protein.

A segment of the DNA, a gene, dictates which the order, indirectly, via RNA.

UGU cystine, and GUG, valine.

If the code is ugu gug ugu, the protein would read cys val cys

But...if onoe base is lost, the code would now be gug ugu gug.

Easier to see like this: "the red dog ran.." .would change to "her edd ogr an....."

It no longer makes sense...which is why most mutations are lethal.

But some would produce new proteins, new enzymes....changes in an organism.



3. My point? As Descartes states, if "at the first instant of creation, God provides the parts with different properties, and after that He does not intervene supernaturally to regulate same," then the mutation process simply provides for evolution.

And it fits natural selection because mutations provide for variation.

4. BTW....lots of things, such as drugs, and radiation, influence that base sequence of genes.


So....wadda ya' think?

Ok. So, you believe in evolution but in a much limited extent, right .

But how can you explain your "similar DNA" argument ?
 
Last edited:
Genesis cannot "predict" something that pre-existed it.


to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization

Thread title:

Genesis, and science, predict marine life.


Non-starter.
 
Genesis cannot "predict" something that pre-existed it.


to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization

Thread title:

Genesis, and science, predict marine life.


Non-starter.


Brilliant. Simply brilliant.


Stick with your day job as garden gnome.
 
Hey, I'm fine with that. I stand above your understanding of the word "predict" and giggle at your smarmy little self.

Get money, broomhilda.
 

Forum List

Back
Top