Comment on Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit by Bob Helm.
@Holly Pham: You bring up an interesting question. Reptile and bird respiratory systems are quite different, and I’m not sure how evolutionists deal with this.
There is a similar question that has bugged me for a long time, and I’ve never seen it addressed. Dinosaurs come in two different orders – saurischians or lizard-hipped dinosaurs and ornithiscians or bird-hipped dinosaurs. Those who propose that birds evolved from dinosaurs state specifically that theropods or meat-eating dinosaurs gave rise to birds. But theropods are lizard-hipped, while birds are, well, bird-hipped! Even the bird-like theropods are lizard-hipped. One would think that if birds evolved from dinosaurs, they would have evolved from the ornithiscians, except that in other respects, ornithiscians are very unlike birds. I’m not sure how evolutionists who believe in dino-bird evolution account for this transition from lizard-hipped theropods to bird-hipped birds. Also, was archaeopteryx lizard-hipped or bird-hipped? What about protoavis?
I will second Holly’s question and ask if anyone knows how Darwinists explain these fundamental changes in anatomy.
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Dear Professor Kent,
Two thoughts – although it appears in the NIV, your pluperfect – “the water had gone down” – is really unwarranted, because Hebrew does not have a pluperfect tense. Gen 8:3 in the NASB simply states: “At the end of the one hundred and fifty days, the water decreased.” There is no reason to make it any more complicated than that, and this statement accords perfectly with the idea that the flood crested on the 150th day. By the way, this is not “Bob Helm’s suggestion,” as many expositors hold this position.
Secondly, where in the world did you get the idea that every bird species was on the ark and that those ancient birds had identical diets to modern birds? Please don’t fall for the hoary falsehood that creationists believe in a fixity of species. Modern creationists agree with Darwin that new species emerge via natural selection. We do not equate baramins or “created kinds” with species, and we believe that micro-evolution occurs within the baramins.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Eddie: Eddie, I would like to see more research on Protoavis. I remember when its discovery was first announced in the early 1990s, it created a sensation, but then it was seemingly forgotten in the rush to prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs. I was trying to google recent information on Protoavis, but everything I found that was significant dated to the early 90s. If you have anything more recent on this fossil, I’d love to read it.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
This is an interesting article that examines extensive evidence for the eruption of lava into water in the Columbia River Basalts in southeastern Wahington and northeastern Oregon. This data suggests that eastern Washington was partially covered with water when these Miocene and early Pliocene deposits were laid down. This would accord with a model in which the Genesis flood ended in the late Cenozoic along the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary. I’m posting this, not as the final word on the subject, but as food for thought.
http://creation.com/field-studies-in-the-columbia-river-basalt-northwest-usa
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be accepted on faith?
I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to “evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, it’s interesting and ironic how churches repeatedly try to become more relevant by accepting Darwinism and other forms of liberalism, but in the end, they always die, while churches that maintain their creationist stance and conservative values continue to grow.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: I wondered if you would bring up alchemy. Just because Newton was wrong about alchemy, why try to slur him over it? Even though he was a great physicist, he was human, and he did make mistakes!
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Pauluc: Actually, there is one extrabiblical reference to Jesus’ Resurrection. In his “Antiquities of the Jews,” we have this from Flavius Josephus: “When the principal men among us had condemned Him [Jesus] to the cross, those who loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day. . .” This so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” has provoked fierce debate, with critics calling it an interpolation. However, it is written in the style of Josephus and appears in all the extant Greek manuscripts of “The Antiquities of the Jews.”
