In Six Days?  (continued)     

March 10, 2008

(Mike Purrington's has written another response to me, which I have posted here. Once more, I respond to him.)

Mike,

I asked you how you expain the sequence of horses in the fossil record. Your explanation is vague, and consists mostly of problems that you see with the existing mainstream view. But what do you put in its place?

The best I can determine, your view of the horse series is something like this: Millions of years after many different creatures had started roaming the earth, Hyracotherium, Orohippus, and Ephippus were suddenly created--PUFF--in individual acts of creation that miraculously violated the laws of physics. Millions of years later, God suddenly created--PUFF--the Mesohippus with another miracle. This Mesohippus evolved for millions of years to become the Miohippus, and later the Parahippus, with each stage becoming more and more like the modern horse. Then millions of years later, suddenly, instead of allowing evolution to create the next step toward the modern horse--PUFF--we have another miracle creation, the Merychippus. Millions of years later, the next step forward is again--PUFF--a miraculous creation of the Dinohippus. Dinohippus evolves into a creature identical with modern horses. Since Dinohippus is also understood to be the ancestor of zebras and donkeys, you apparently think Dinohippus evolved into all three. Then sometime before 10,00 years ago the sun became a red giant, destroying most if not all mammals, but not the fossil record. Finally about 6000 years ago, God re-created the horse and zebra just like the ones that had been wiped out. What a story!

To answer you question about the horse. It is assumed that the horse evolved from a 12 inch tall Hyracotherium toward its current size, however this is problematic since the the origin of Hyrocotherium (eohippus), the first horse, is unknown, as there are no fossils connecting it to its alleged ancestors.

The Hyracotherium appears in the fossil record only after that long series of mammal-like reptiles that you keep bypassing. Could not the Hyracotherium have descended from them? If not, why did this long line of animals progressing toward mammals exist before the first full mammals such as Hyracotherium appeared?

The evolutionary line evolutionists have come up with for horses is Hyrocotherium, Orohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Dinohippus, Equus or modern horse.

Yes, but don't forget all of the side branches. It was not a linear movement toward modern horses, but there were many branches in different directions that died out. One of the side branches seems to have lead to the modern rhinoceros.

Also, remember that each of these names represents a genus, a group of species. Just like the genus Equus includes the horse, zebra, and donkey, so each genus listed here included a variety of species.

Hyracotherium, Orohippus, and Epihippus are all found from the same age of rocks and are very similar apart from a sequential decrease in size.

Where are you getting your information? Mainstream science dates the Hyracotherium at 55-45M years ago, the Orohippus at 52- 45M years ago, and the Mesohippus at 37 - 32M years ago. You don't agree with mainstream science on this? Okay when do you think these animals existed, and what is the evidence that you have to prove that mainstream scientists are wrong?

One of the features of the horse that has changed through its history, and that is commonly used as an example of evolution, is its legs and feet. Between Epihippus and Mesohippus, there is a morphological gap as the size increases about 50 percent and the number of toes on the front feet suddenly decreases from four to three.

Okay, and how do you explain this feature change with time, if not by evolution? Why do we find toes closer to the modern horse as we move up in the fossil record? You have no answer for that, do you?

Mesohippus, Miohippus, and Parahippus are very similar and do not involve major evolutionary changes.

The changes may be minor, but there are important changes (See Horse Evolution). So what exactly are you saying here? Do you accept that Parahippus evolved from the Mesohippus? You seem to be accepting that this much evolution occurred.   

The transition to Meryhippus involves a significant instantaneous increase in size, and the transition to Dinohippus a sudden decrease to one toe. From there it’s a straight shot to modern horses.

Okay, you seem to recognize that Merychippus was significantly more like a modern horse. And you think this change occurred too fast for evolution to have accomplished it? But the first Parahippus lived 24M years ago, and the first Merychippus doesn't show up until 17M years ago. How do you know that the indicated change could not have happened in 7 million years? That is a long time.

If your God allowed Parahippus to evolve from Mesohippus, as you seem to believe, then why couldn't your God have allowed Merchippus to evolve from Parahippus in a few million years?  Do you really think this feat of evolution is too great for your God? If your God can't do this, how do you know God was able to create Merychipus from scratch?

The problem I have with the reconstructed fossils of the horse is none of the fossils came from the same place but from all over. Am I right or wrong?

Horses are fast animals. They could easily migrate at the rate of a mile per year. And since there was occasionally a land bridge between Asia and Alaska, in 100,000 years a successful species of horse could easily spread throughout the world. So a horse could be found in one location, its descendent 1 million years later found on the other side of the globe, and that horse's descendents in yet another location. This in no sense proves that the horses are not related.

I don’t see where evolution has proved its point through the horse, the only thing I see are holes in the theory.

Well, the difference between the optimist and the pessimist, is that the optimist sees the donut, and the pessimist sees the hole. I see the donut. And it seems to me that, no matter how big the "donuts" of horse evidence, you might still see the holes.

Are you looking for anything but the holes?

As to your next question… what about the long series of mammal-like reptiles that became more mammal like as time progressed?               Let me ask you this, how would you explain a Platypus? This creature first baffled European naturalists when they first encountered it, with some considering it an elaborate fraud, yet it was real.               Consider this. The Platypus and other monotremes were very poorly understood and some of the 19th century myths that grew up around them, for example, that the monotremes were "inferior" or quasi-reptilian, still endure. In fact, modern monotremes are the survivors of an early branching of the mammal tree; a later branching is thought to have led to the marsupial and placental groups.  Although in 1947, William King Gregory had theorized that placental mammals and marsupials may have diverged earlier with a subsequent branching dividing the monotremes and marsupials, later research and fossil discoveries have suggested this is incorrect.

You completely ignored the question. No problem. I will repeat it again: What about the long series of mammal-like reptiles, that become increasingly more mammal-like as time progressed? There were no mammals living before or during the time when those mammal-like reptiles lived, but after the fossil record passes through a long series of intermediates, mammals are then found in more recent layers. The most likely explanation for this is that mammals evolved from earlier creatures. Do you have any explanation for this at all?

Please address the question.

The Platypus represents a mammal that retains a few features of reptiles. But it is very far from the series of mammal-like reptiles that begin very much like reptiles and become progressively more like mammals in the fossil record. (See Mammal-like Repitles.)

Not everything that appears to be correct is correct. Is it possible that God used evolution? Genesis says,               God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

Yes, I know that Genesis teaches that God created the various "kinds" of animals, but how did God do it? This verse doesn't say that God didn't use evolution. And even if it did, could this not be a place where Genesis is mistaken?

Does your case against evolution consist only of a few verses from the Bible? Okay, then you object on theological reasons, not on scientific reasons. If you are going to claim your views of evolution are scientific, then you are going to need to give us a scientific valid reason to believe that evolution did not happen. And you cannot think of a scientific reason to validate your point, can you?

You said, I suggest we use scientific methods, and I agree, but there must be a base line. Science without truth is science fiction.

Uh, the question is how we establish the base line of truth. I suggest that the way to establish truth is through the scientific method. You apparently have some other method. What method do you use to establish truth, and why do you think that method is better at establishing truth than the scientific method?

What if science finds your baseline to be wrong? Are you willing to change your baseline to match science? If you will not allow science to change your baseline, then you really aren't trusting science. But if you do allow science to change your baseline, why do you need the baseline? What is wrong with doing science for the sake of science, and letting science determine what is right.

It would seem to me that scientific knowledge determined with the scientific method is more accurate than our baselines.

You said that Mainstream science has found that the talking points for evolution so overwhelm the talking points against evolution, that mainstream scientists refer to evolution as fact. I disagree. For every article, book, or talking point there is two apposing arguments and each side uses the same science, education, facts and data to prove their point. I’ll give you an example, go to http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/cl_iconsstillstanding.htm and read.

Uh wait, there is a difference between making claims and making true claims. Are the claims at that site true? Can you understand that publishing false statements on the Internet doesn't make them true?

So we need to determine if the claims at that page are true, before we say they refute evolution, don't we?

Science has a method of evaluating the truth of statements before they are published for the general public. I see no indication that this site has done what scientists do, that is, require those ideas to pass through the peer-review process in scientific journals before they are submitted as truth to the public.

Show me this, in all of the evolutionary theory where does the spark of life come from?

What do you mean when you say, "spark of life". That's not a phrase I usually use, and I don't know what you mean.

Evolutionary science can say tell us what compounds and chemicals make up life, but they can’t create it. They can clone it from skin cells, from t cells, from eggs and embryos, but they can’t create it. And if they could where did the original compounds come from? Where did it all begin?

Uh, we can make some of the compounds and chemicals of life. Have you never heard of the Miller-Urey experiment, and how such a simple experiment produced basic building blocks of life?

----------------------------

We turn now to the response you posted at The God of Creation on your blog.

I think it’s a fair question however I think the writer has overlooked that I did speak of an alternative method and that is, God spoke life into existence just as it says in Genesis.

You describe a miraculous violation of the laws of physics, right? And you believe these miracles happened many times, throughout history, right?

Can you explain to me how a God who can do all of these miracles is not able to evolve a horse from a Hyracotherium? I can't understand why your God is capable of doing all these repeated acts of creation, but finds himself unable to create by evolution..

But before we do let me say again why I believe that God did not use evolution as the means by which he created. In my opinion by allowing life to evolve meant he spoke the spark of life into existence and then left it to its own devices. Some life forms lived, and some died, this is not the God I serve.

So your argument comes down to theology?

But for argument sake let’s assume that He did use evolution as the means by which to create, then the writer of this question would have to consider the evidence for God just as I have to consider the evidence he lays out for evolution.

Fair enough. Once we establish the fact of evolution, we can move on and discuss God. But we are not here to discuss God. We are here to discuss evolution. Can we get back on subject?

If God never existed as evolutionary science and secular humanists teach then creation is indeed a myth, but if we can prove that God does exist and that Christ is who he said he was and is than evolution and its teachings fall flat and it forces those that believe in evolution to take a second look at scripture and its teachings.

Uh, how would proving things about God and Christ prove that evolution is false? Many serious Christians believe in evolution. I have reminded you of that in the past. Your words don't allow that such people exist. But such people do exist.

Even you write words that say that the "minor" evolution from Mesohippus to Parahippus happened. If believing in Jesus causes one not to believe in evolution, why do you write words that admit that some evolution happened?

Next

Home