Is Bible history fact or fiction?

[Erasmus00]

I thought the consensus now was that this little dude was a real bird, not a half/half example. It is not a hoax, per se, but it is not the bird/reptile link as initially hypothesized.

 

Not quite. It has been catagorized as a bird, because new fossil evidence suggests it had full feathers and wings. This doesn't mean it doesn't have lizard features, in fact, it has

 

no bill

teeth on premaxilla and maxilla bones

nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole)

neck attached to skull from the rear

center of cervical vertebrae that have simple concave articular facets

long bony tail; no pygostyle

ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes, and not articulated with the sternum

sacrum that occupies six vertebrae

small thoracic girdle

claws on three unfused digits

bones of pelvis unfused

 

These features are more reptilian than modern bird. You'll read on many creationist sites that this has been "discerdited" and is actually fully a bird. This isn't really true. Scientists have just decided to classify it as a bird, despite its many reptilian features. It certainly seems to qualify as an intermediate fossil, and there are a few others. For instance, fossils of the diatom Rhizsolenia are common, and there is a continuous record going back two million years, which includes a speciation event.

-Will

[bumab]

The fundamental point of Gould and Eldredge in 1972 when they first proffered the Punctuated Equilibrium thesis is that the fossil record is largely complete. There are certainly holes, but the overall pattern is pretty well circumscribed. That thesis has held up well for the ensuing 30+ years through the addition of countless fossils, suggesting they were reasonably accurate.

 

Yes- the fossil record is getting pretty near complete. To go looking for specific species is still impossible, for the most part, due to the difficulties in fossilizing various body parts, however overall there's a nice continuum going back through the past. Many, many complete trends are visible- the progression of whales to the sea is the popular one at the moment.

[Biochemist]

I would like to insert a point here, because of your point below about "evidence". If this point gets broader, we ought to move this discussion to the evolution forum.

...the weight of evidence supporting Darwin, evolution, genetics, inheritance, etc. is slightly more than the two or three pounds (depending on your version) of the Good Book.

It is worth noting (again) that the notion of "evolution" includes a broad set of ideas. Some of those ideas are broadly supported (even by Christian folks) some are broadly disregarded (even by evolutionists) and some are in between. "Evolution", in normal usage, usually includes:

 

1) Darwinism- Darwin himself thought that all evolution was the result of natural selection. He himself thought that if the fossil record did not demonstrate consistent gradual change in species, this thesis would not hold water. "Darwinism" per se is not held as the core model of evolution by anyone.

2) Natural selection- This is the process whereby small incremental changes in individual species may advantage a species. Most people accept natural selection as fact, even theists.

3) Gradualism- Gradualisms is a mix of two separate mechanisms: Genetic Drift and Speciation by Mutation.

3a)Genetic Drift- genetic drift is the process whereby recessive alleles are selected, particuilarly in small, sequestered populations. This is probably the primary mechanism in all known cases of natural selection. Most people accept genetic drift as fact, even theists.

3b) Speciation by Mutation- This is the process whereby mutations in genes over long periods of time aggregate to create another species. This is the example where theists and evoloutionisist usually part company.

4) Lamarckian hypothesis- This is the notion that adaptations acquired in the life of a parent can be transmitted to the offspring. Most folks hold this thesis in low regard (Christian or not) although there are some rare examples where this is probably true.

5) Punctuated equilibrium- This is not so much a mechanism as the name of a problem. PE frames the issue that the fossil record does not show gradual speciation as would have been suggested by Darwin. Rather, the first 3 phyla existed pretty much in parallel for about 3 billion years. Suddenly, another 100 phyla or so showed in the animal fossil record over the next several hundred million years. No new phyla have occurred since then and about 70 have become extinct. No mechanism for the sudden arrival of phyla (often called the "cambrian explosion") is part of the problem description.

6) Niche speciation post cataclysm-Although not necessarily so-named, the commonly held view (to at least partially explain the PE fossil record) is that cataclysms tend to eradicate large numbers of individuals, and thus leave many new or preexisting niches open for invasion by a new speciator. Support for this element is mixed, as is the data in support of it.

 

My overall point is that almost everyone in basic science agrees on almost all of this irrespective of their theistic views, with the exception of 3b) above. This is where there is a dual-faith battle. Personally, speaking on the basis of knowledge in molecular biology, I think the evidence for speciation by mutation is nearly absent. We ran an entire thread on this (Punctuated equilibrium theories) if you are really interested.

 

In the case of speciation by mutation, I do not regard this as a case of blindly faithful theists arguing against facts, becasue there are so few facts to argue against. The non-theists tend to support speciation by mutation becasue it is the only extant theory, in spite of the dearth of evidence in support of it. Evidence for "evolution"? Sure. Evidence for speciation by mutation? Paltry.

[Freethinker]

Don't misunderstand what I said... I do not agree to evolution which says all living creatures evolved from a single celled organism which somehow came into existence from chemicals in some primordial ooze.

Hahahahaha, had to drop in and see if things have digressed into such mindless ramblings again. See, I'm gone for a while and this happens again.

 

You KNOW this nonsense would never be allowed when i was around!

It can't be supported by anything but science fiction. What I agreed to was that using interbreeding within a Genus, some new species can be made (look at A.K.C. species histories). That type of speciation

Yep, the typical complete lack of knowledge as is always expressed by Creationists.

 

1) Evolution has nothing to so with:

a single celled organism which somehow came into existence from chemicals in some primordial ooze.

If you had bothered to get a factual education on the subject you would KNOW this. The field of scientific research dealing with the first organic living cell is Abiogenesis.

 

2)"Species" a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding (WWWebster). As such "speciation" means an evolutionary distancing between two species with common accestory to the point at which the two species can no longer interbreed. To claim that dog breeding has ANY value in refuting Evolution only shows your utter lack of factual and scientific understanding of Evolution, Abiogenesis or Speciation.

 

Get an education. Oh but then you would no longer be a Creationist would you?

 

Poor Tormod. No one here to help fight scientific ignorance?

[Tormod]

Poor Tormod. No one here to help fight scientific ignorance?

 

Oh sure. We have a pretty good crew now. ;)

 

What else could we do when our Resident Atheist disappeared on us?

[Freethinker]

Oh and as I did not see any actual discussion of the specific subject topic in the last set of replies.

 

The bible is both.

 

We can still find girls that wear cloths with red hoods. That does not PROVE the "Little Red Ridding Hood" fairy tale was factual history.

 

Yes the bible hs some historically accurate details intertwined with it's absurd and horrendeous nonsense. But they are few and far between.

 

e.g. there is not any valid evidence that the Israelites lived as a significant group in Egypt. Leaving the whole OT and Exodus as just historically false nonsense.

 

Oh ya and the whole invention of some Jesus the Christ personage. What a joke!

 

And both of the "Slaughter of Innocence" scary fairy tales. Try finding ANY historical confirmation for these biblical lies.

[infamous]

Hahahahaha, had to drop in and see if things have digressed into such mindless ramblings again.?

 

Good to have you back Freet, where have you been hiden out. It's been quite a while since youv'e made your presence known around here. In any event, it's good to hear from you again. Enjoy........................

[Freethinker]

Oh sure. We have a pretty good crew now. ;)

 

What else could we do when our Resident Atheist disappeared on us?

Hey Tormod! Wish I had a camera with me with all the exposure the T shirt has been getting. Especially during the largest music festival in the world last week.

 

I hope the family is well?

[Freethinker]

Good to have you back Freet, where have you been hiden out. It's been quite a while since youv'e made your presence known around here. In any event, it's good to hear from you again. Enjoy........................

Unfortunately just a drive by. Biz is good and continuing to grow. Time is tight. But as mentioned with the T shirt. Hypog was on my mind and I felt I had to see what was up! Looks like same old same old. But I wasn't seeing the appropriate level of challenge.

[Biochemist]

...Get an education. Oh but then you would no longer be a Creationist would you?

FrT- We generally frown on hostile attacks here.

 

And if you are going to assign illiegitmacy to the association of abiogenesis with evolution (even though that association is quite common in normal usage) you should certainly heed your own advice and "get an education'" about what a "creationist" is, since there is no evidence in anything that Skippy wrote that he is a Creationist.

 

But then, it does not appear that you are the least bit constrained by lack of evidence.

[bumab]

Not an appropriate level of challange?! That sounds like an insult! ;)

[Skippy]

Yes- the fossil record is getting pretty near complete. To go looking for specific species is still impossible, for the most part, due to the difficulties in fossilizing various body parts, however overall there's a nice continuum going back through the past. Many, many complete trends are visible- the progression of whales to the sea is the popular one at the moment.

I think you've stepped in it now, and may not be able to shake it off your shoes ;) . What I mean is... The title of this thread is "Is Bible history fact or fiction?" Consider fossils. How is it possible to have fossils of leaves? If left uncovered, the organic material in a leaf will be eaten by ants or other animals or it will dry out, crack into small fragments and become compost (soil). One explanation is a flood. The massive amounts of resulting sediment would quickly cover and somewhat preserve soft tissues such as leaves, feathers, skin and hair.

[Tormod]

Hey Tormod! Wish I had a camera with me with all the exposure the T shirt has been getting. Especially during the largest music festival in the world last week.

 

Great! Didn't manage to get a TV shot of yourself...?

 

I hope the family is well?

 

Yup! Vacation soon... ;)

[bumab]

How is it possible to have fossils of leaves?

 

Where I live we have many fossils of leaves. TONS. You can pick them off the side of the road. They all date back 50-60 million years, and come from many different levels in a sandstone formation (the Chuckanut formation). It's not only possible to make leaf fossils, it's pretty easy. A flood could do it. So could a stream. So could a landslide. It's called a carbon film fossil, and they are extremely common.

[infamous]

Unfortunately just a drive by. Biz is good and continuing to grow. Time is tight. But as mentioned with the T shirt. Hypog was on my mind and I felt I had to see what was up! Looks like same old same old. But I wasn't seeing the appropriate level of challenge.

 

Absolutely Freet., I'm sure you can remember that we two have different ideas about faith. Never-the-less, your retoric was most challenging and quite frankly, I've missed your presence around here. Drop in more often, your very skilled at getting people to at least think about alternative views. I think Hypography needs your point of view even though I don't quite agree with it sometimes. I wil admit that I've changed my point of view about somethings while you've been gone and would be happy to see you return to a more active role at this forum. In any case, good to hear from you again,..........

[Freethinker]

FrT- We generally frown on hostile attacks here.

Check post count before trying to say what is and what is not done around here. Your only half way there.

 

Further, it is shown statistically that the higher the level of education, the less apt to be a "believer".And even more so, the more highly regarded a person is in the scientific community, the odds increase dramatically to where the most highly regarded scientists in the world show less that 7% as theists. Thus my statement is factual. If posting factually accurate statements is considered hostile...

And if you are going to assign illiegitmacy to the association of abiogenesis with evolution

Please show us all where I did this. What I did was educate this previously ignorant person on the difference between them. No matter what the "association" might be between them. They are DIFFERENT fields of research. And anyone that claims that issues regarding Abiogenesis disproves Evolution merely shows that ignorance. I have little patience for the intentional promotion of ignorance and have a reputation for speaking out against it.

you should certainly heed your own advice and "get an education'" about what a "creationist" is, since there is no evidence in anything that Skippy wrote that he is a Creationist.

You mean beside the extensive mindless parrotting of Creationist propoganda?

But then, it does not appear that you are the least bit constrained by lack of evidence.

"He don't know me do he?" (some cartoon character, perhaps Bugs Bunny?)

[Freethinker]

Great! Didn't manage to get a TV shot of yourself...?

Only CCTV at the Quickymart I stopped at to get some cash! :-)

up! Vacation soon... ;)

Another one? I see things have not changed in some areas!

Hope your head thing turned out OK!