An ‘Extinct’ Tortoise May Still Be Alive
Evidence indicates a Galapagos tortoise thought
extinct since the mid-1800s may still be around.
Summary: DNA testing of 1,600 tortoises on Isabela Island in the
Galapagos has suggested a giant tortoise species long thought to
have gone extinct in the mid-1800s may still be alive. Among the native
Chelonoidis becki tortoises, researchers found at least 84 animals that
were the direct offspring of a different tortoise species, Chelonoidis
elephantopus, which originally lived on nearby Floreana Island, an
island that now has no tortoises.
The 84 tortoises were Isabela/Floreana hybrids, but the scientists think
there could potentially be 38 or more pure blooded Floreana tortoises
still alive on Isabela Island. "The only way these hybrids could be
produced is if we had some pure Floreana animals still alive on the
island… because some of these animals are hybrids which are first-
generation crosses," Adalgisa Caccone, an evolutionary biologist at
Yale University, says.
The researchers believe the Floreana animals were taken by whalers
onboard ships to be used as food but then must have been dropped
off or escaped in order to find their way to Isabela island, which was
never settled by humans.
This discovery dates to 1994 when the same researchers took 60 blood
samples from tortoises living on the sides of a volcano on Isabela.
Caccone says they found some individuals so divergent genetically they
were referred to as “aliens.” Years later, after DNA analysis had
improved, tests of bone and shell from extinct Galapagos tortoise
species kept in museums revealed that the “aliens” had actually come
from Floreana island. An expedition involving 50 people spent two
weeks recently on Isabela and took 1,660 blood samples to confirm
these conclusions.
While the scientists did not find any purebred Chelonoidis elephantopus
individuals, they are satisfied that the purebreds are there on Isabela
island and reproducing. If pure blooded animals are found, they will be
reintroduced to their home island of Floreana. Otherwise, a breeding
program might back cross the hybrids to build up a population closer to
full-blooded Floreanas, which would later be taken to Floreana.
The Galapagos tortoises are among the animal species there that
Charles Darwin said helped him form his ideas on evolution. Darwin
noted that many of the islands had their own, distinct, tortoise species
and inferred that each species had evolved to survive best on its own
home island. Some of the Floreana tortoises, which can live to be 100
or older, may be the children of ones that Darwin saw.
(Thanks to Dr. Bruce Holman for suggesting this story.)
(Photo of a Galapagos tortoise with a scientific name [Geochelone
elephantopus] similar to the “extinct” species is from Wikimedia
Commons, credited to Matthew Field.)
To read the entire article, click on USA TODAY.
Comment: Where did Darwin go wrong in the Galapagos, considering
he obviously was correct in his observation that different environments
can lead to differences in animals? Like evolutionary scientists today,
he erred when he inferred that minor changes in animals (variations
within a type of animal) can be strung together in such a way that they
can lead to major changes (molecule-to-man evolution).
However, nature cannot be shown to be a ladder, where one step will
take you to another and another and another. The overwhelming
evidence indicates that while there is room for variation within the
genome of each type of animal, there are also strict limits to how much
change is possible. Limited variation, sometimes called microevolution,
is affirmed by all scientists, evolutionist and creationist alike. However,
creationist scientists want to see evidence for the microbe-to-man type
of change, referred to as macroevolution or Darwinian evolution.
It is easy for the people to be fooled. A type of faulty reasoning, called
affirmation of the consequent, is sometimes employed to convince
people that major changes, aka macroevolution, can occur and have
occurred. This false logic takes a form something like the following: If A
is true, we should see B. We see B. Therefore A is must be true. Sounds
reasonable, doesn’t it? But many examples can be provided to show this
approach can produce entirely wrong conclusions. For instance,
consider: If there is a total eclipse of the sun, it should be dark outside.
It is dark outside. Therefore, there must be a total eclipse of the sun.
This thinking can be faculty because B can be due to other reasons
besides A.
An evolutionist then might reason: If evolution is true, we should see
changes in animals. We do see changes in animals. Therefore evolution
must be true. But the changes we see in animals such as the tortoises
are due to their genomes which permit some variation, but they are not
due to Darwinian evolution. For example, the animals that descended
from the “cat kind” which left Noah’s ark have taken on various different
appearances and sizes, but they are all clearly cats. No part-cat, part-
non-cat has ever been documented. The changes in felines down
through the ages have been limited.
The human race today also displays many differences in appearance,
but we are all clearly human. We are all descended from the original
pair of humans, Adam and Eve, and also from the four couples aboard
the ark. While different in some respects, we are all perfectly alike in
one crucial way. We are all sinful creatures in desperate need of a
Savior. And we all indeed do have a Savior. We are being offered total
forgiveness of our sins and the assurance that through faith in Jesus
Christ, heaven will be our future home. “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and
you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).
PRINT (Black type on white background)
***************************************************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new
post? Just e-mail your request to [admin@lutheranscience.org].
***************************************************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Where is the world’s longest bridge over water?
***************************************************************************
18 Comments
Nutcracker wrote: How do you know that all cats form a single "kind"?
How do you know that, say, house cats and lions aren't separate
"kinds"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: They could be, I suppose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Possibly, my first comment didn't connect.
But, to follow up on Nutcracker, the fact is that we have some 30 cat
"kinds" and 30 dog "kinds" today, almost all of them wild. The huge
claim of your creationists is that they "instantly" evolved from just a few
general "kinds" on the Ark. This is bogus. You would never need such
foolishness if you weren't wasting at least 90% of the Ark's space on
extinct species such as scores of dinosaur "kinds" and more "recent"
megafauna as well. Let me repeat here what I always say, that if you
deal properly with the Word and the works of God, there's no conflict.
Your ICR's flawed scenario tells a different story entirely. GLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Unless GLL was there taking notes at the time the
animals left the ark (and I doubt that he was), it is a bit arrogant to say
how many “created kinds” among dogs and cats presently exist. Just as
evolutionists can’t always agree on what a “species” is, creationists may
differ at times when it comes to “kinds.” According to Dr. Gary Parker,
there are “lumpers” and “splitters” in both evolutionist and creationist
camps. So, depending on which camp you lean toward, there could be
as many as 28 cat species or as few as one! Bible-believing geneticists
have no problem understanding how we could have such a variety of
cats today, all of whom have descended from one or a few cat species
or kinds. Remember that "kind" is a broader term than "species" and
can include more than one species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: If you can't tell how many "kinds" of cats there are,
doesn't this contradict your position that "kinds" are discrete biological
units and that intermediate body plans are non-existent? You're
absolutely right in saying that biologists sometimes have a difficult time
delimiting between species, but that's because species are not
immutable -- they are transient in time. According to creationists, this
isn't so with "kinds".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Warren - I trust Gary Parker for nothing,
least of all his take on Grand Canyon (Flood) geology. But, hey, let's
look at just the last 50,000,000 years of Deep Time geology (which your
Fundamentalists sadly suppose to be from AFTER the Flood, including
maybe a few surviving dinosaurs). John Morris told me himself that the
Yucatan impact happened "very late" in the Flood account. So tell me,
please, about Smilodon, from after the Flood in your scenario. Did it
and the house cat have a common ancestor on the Ark? Why do its
bones show possibly only a trace of C-14 in them, as compared to the
bones of Egyptian cats living roughly within the same post-Flood period,
in your scenario? The same for the direwolf. Why would you want it
using up space and provisions on the Ark, when it could have been
safely extinct before the Flood? If you'd get real about the C-14 of the
Neolithic (and a worldwide Flood leaving no evidence at all, so that we
must "walk by faith" here also, "not by sight"), you'd find the bones of
big, small, and fast dogs, all of good use to people before the Flood. So
let them all be with Noah, so that God determined the "kind" as he sent
every other animal to the Ark. Same for cats, rodents, horses, and all
the rest. Don't forget the wonderful elephants of Deep Time, to tell us
how they also "evolved" instantly as they left the Ark. "Put not your trust
in princes," God says. Nor even court clowns. GLL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Gerhold, in view of the fact that I have yet to hear of
a single person who agrees with your strange views, especially
regarding “created fossils” and a tranquil Flood, I would think your
dismissal of Dr. Parker’s writings would carry very little weight. Rather,
we should be rejoicing that this former evolutionist was convinced from
creation science that he was wrong and has now become a Christian.
The story of his conversion apparently contains a humorous anecdote
of a time when as a member of the science department at a Christian
college he was on a panel debating creation/evolution with the Bible
department. It was the science department that was defending the Bible
and the religion department which was defending evolution. How
humorous and yet how sad!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Editor, don't you also believe that God created
the universe with the appearance of false history?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Nutcracker, Mr. John Woidke, who wrote the two-part
essay “A Letter From Grandpa” (you will find a link to this document on
this website’s home page), has requested that you read and comment
on his paper. If you would be willing to do this, you can use the
comments box on any post for your comments. Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Warren - Several years back, a WELS
district president and a WELS seminary professor supported the
possibility of created fossils on the pages of our WELS monthly.
Individually, WELS friends with science doctorates came to my same
conclusion before they ever met me or heard of what I was doing. And
our entire seminary faculty met on the question in the fall of 1994 and
told me that "my" theory deserved equal time with Flood theory (so that
our thinking should follow the evidence for or against either position).
You don't do that. --- In 1996, our Minnesota District convention
"thanked God" for my work, and let me pass around a sheet for delegate
comments. Three laymen of longer church experience told me that they
could remember up to maybe ten individuals in their home parish who
would have left WELS on the issue of flawed Lutheran "science" vs.
evolutionism. Before that convention, I had sent 160 parishes material
vs. Flood geology. It included a sketch of the geology of the Alberta
badlands (where you find more different dinosaurs than anywhere else
in the world except for maybe China/Mongolia). With the bones in 500
feet of strata, tracks of these dinosaurs have been found on at least
100 levels (average of 5 feet apart). The badlands sit on top of thick
Paleozoic "Flood" geology, so how can your LSI honestly claim that the
dinosaurs were still running freely about months after they should all
have been drowned, if that ever happened? For the Bible still to be true
in the face of so much evidence for Deep Time, the only credible answer
worth any respect has to be: All Created Thus (part of a "virtual
history"). Oh, yes - The chairman of the committee answering me at the
convention told me on his own that he thought that a created geology
was the best answer. So, now you know. GLL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Gerhold, I know nothing about the events you
mention above. All I know is that people with whom I have had
discussions regarding your science find your views on “created fossils”
and a tranquil Flood to be ridiculous. Also, if my memory serves me,
the only person who has commented on this blog and found anything
positive to say about your science is an evolutionist!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Warren - In one of his many informed
essays, Stephen Gould (also an atheist of note) said that science has
nothing at all to fault in the Omphalos theory (as opposed to faulting
everything claimed for Flood geology). If you want "ridiculous," you can
Google for: WELS dinosaurs (several pages through). Start with
"Dinosaurmania," and ask yourself if good people should try harder to
get real. And what do you say when postings on WELS Q&A contradict
you? GLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Thanks, Editor. I have read the "Letter from
Grandpa" and would be more than happy to reply to Mr. Woidke if you
would be willing to link my reply to the original letter. Woidke does
frame the letter as a "discussion", after all, and a discussion entails a
two-way exchange of ideas.
In the meantime, why not answer the question I just posed to you: don't
you also believe that God created the universe with false history?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Mr. Woidke is an elderly man who does not have
Internet access and so would be unable to engage in a verbal tennis
match with you like you seem to enjoy. What he wants, I believe, is to
find out how you would respond to the points he brings up. So, a short
response that would not be published but would be sent to him for him
to digest would be appreciated. However, it is up to you.
As for your question, no, a holy God would not create a false history,
but I would agree there is a not-yet-completely-understood history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Thanks, Editor. It's difficult to write a short
response to such a long letter, but I'll figure something out.
I'm glad you agree that God would not create a false history. You must
think that Adam must not have a belly button. But how do you explain
distant starlight, particularly from such things as exploding stars?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Greetings, Nutcracker. With all due respect, as an
evolutionist you are the last person to be complaining about a “false
history.” You believe the world is 4.5 billion years old; so why does the
Earth look so young and active, with its vast array of living creatures, its
violent storms, earthquakes, moving tectonic plates, volcanoes, etc.? It
is not some dead rock floating in space like an asteroid or the moon.
You believe dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago; so why do we find
so many dinosaur fossils still with soft tissue? You believe types of
animals can evolve into completely different types of animals; so where
are all the transitional fossils?
I figured you would bring up the starlight travel problem for creationists,
which is why I spoke of a “not-yet-completely-understood” history.
Creationists presently have only theories, such as that deep space time
is different from near-Earth time (as Albert Einstein suggested) and can
account of the long ages seen in starlight. But, of course, as I have
mentioned before, evolutionists have their own starlight travel time
problem (the horizon problem) to worry about. As for Adam possibly/
probably not having a belly button, what’s the problem? He did not have
a mother.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Incidentally, Editor, it's funny that you should argue
that the earth looks young because it isn't "dead" like asteroids or the
moon. Are you arguing that these celestial bodies are, in fact, quite
old?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Warren - Certainly, Adam had a navel.
Remember, at Creation already God knew that his Son would
have to be the Savior of a sin/death world. Nothing about God
changes. So if in our New Testament age we are to "walk by faith"
only, then this had to be the same will of God in Old Testament times.
Adam's lack of a navel for 900-some years would have been a
"walk by sight" proof for a fallen, gainsaying humanity that they were,
in fact, a result of God's Creation. How could God allow that, when
today we have only the witness of a preached Word to believe?
Adam's job was to be a preacher as well, with no visual aids to help him
prove Creation. Just the Word.
In my former note, I failed to take you to task for dismissing everything
that I had just told you about people of science & orthodox religion
agreeing with the Omphalos answer that I accept. So, is any historical
fact real only if YOU are a personal witness of it? Fittingly, the opposite
side of this coin is that you DO accept as fact everything that Delugian
"science" claims without anybody (!) giving it to you as an observed fact.
Amity stems first from mutual respect. GLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Regarding Adam’s navel, I at least left the door open
for either possibility by saying “possibly/probably.” But it makes sense
that he likely didn’t because why would he need an umbilical cord? On
the other hand, you act like God with your usual “know it all” attitude and
say emphatically that he did have a navel.
Regarding Noah’s Flood, I accept as fact what the Bible says about the
springs of the great deep BURSTING FORTH (Genesis 7:11, NIV1984)
or the foundations of the great deep BROKEN OPEN (KJV) and what
seems reasonable by looking at God’s world.
Anyway, this discussion has now reached 18 comments, which is long
enough, so I am closing it down.
NOTE ON VISITOR COMMENTS: The visitor comments box on this
site has been temporarily removed because of an inordinate amount
of spam coming through it. We still invite your comments, but
please either (1) e-mail your comments using our e-mail address
(admin@lutheranscience.org) remembering to indicate the date of the
post on which you want your comments to appear or (2) use the
blogspot site by clicking on the link at the top of the page. Sorry for
any inconvenience.
Evidence indicates a Galapagos tortoise thought
extinct since the mid-1800s may still be around.
Summary: DNA testing of 1,600 tortoises on Isabela Island in the
Galapagos has suggested a giant tortoise species long thought to
have gone extinct in the mid-1800s may still be alive. Among the native
Chelonoidis becki tortoises, researchers found at least 84 animals that
were the direct offspring of a different tortoise species, Chelonoidis
elephantopus, which originally lived on nearby Floreana Island, an
island that now has no tortoises.
The 84 tortoises were Isabela/Floreana hybrids, but the scientists think
there could potentially be 38 or more pure blooded Floreana tortoises
still alive on Isabela Island. "The only way these hybrids could be
produced is if we had some pure Floreana animals still alive on the
island… because some of these animals are hybrids which are first-
generation crosses," Adalgisa Caccone, an evolutionary biologist at
Yale University, says.
The researchers believe the Floreana animals were taken by whalers
onboard ships to be used as food but then must have been dropped
off or escaped in order to find their way to Isabela island, which was
never settled by humans.
This discovery dates to 1994 when the same researchers took 60 blood
samples from tortoises living on the sides of a volcano on Isabela.
Caccone says they found some individuals so divergent genetically they
were referred to as “aliens.” Years later, after DNA analysis had
improved, tests of bone and shell from extinct Galapagos tortoise
species kept in museums revealed that the “aliens” had actually come
from Floreana island. An expedition involving 50 people spent two
weeks recently on Isabela and took 1,660 blood samples to confirm
these conclusions.
While the scientists did not find any purebred Chelonoidis elephantopus
individuals, they are satisfied that the purebreds are there on Isabela
island and reproducing. If pure blooded animals are found, they will be
reintroduced to their home island of Floreana. Otherwise, a breeding
program might back cross the hybrids to build up a population closer to
full-blooded Floreanas, which would later be taken to Floreana.
The Galapagos tortoises are among the animal species there that
Charles Darwin said helped him form his ideas on evolution. Darwin
noted that many of the islands had their own, distinct, tortoise species
and inferred that each species had evolved to survive best on its own
home island. Some of the Floreana tortoises, which can live to be 100
or older, may be the children of ones that Darwin saw.
(Thanks to Dr. Bruce Holman for suggesting this story.)
(Photo of a Galapagos tortoise with a scientific name [Geochelone
elephantopus] similar to the “extinct” species is from Wikimedia
Commons, credited to Matthew Field.)
To read the entire article, click on USA TODAY.
Comment: Where did Darwin go wrong in the Galapagos, considering
he obviously was correct in his observation that different environments
can lead to differences in animals? Like evolutionary scientists today,
he erred when he inferred that minor changes in animals (variations
within a type of animal) can be strung together in such a way that they
can lead to major changes (molecule-to-man evolution).
However, nature cannot be shown to be a ladder, where one step will
take you to another and another and another. The overwhelming
evidence indicates that while there is room for variation within the
genome of each type of animal, there are also strict limits to how much
change is possible. Limited variation, sometimes called microevolution,
is affirmed by all scientists, evolutionist and creationist alike. However,
creationist scientists want to see evidence for the microbe-to-man type
of change, referred to as macroevolution or Darwinian evolution.
It is easy for the people to be fooled. A type of faulty reasoning, called
affirmation of the consequent, is sometimes employed to convince
people that major changes, aka macroevolution, can occur and have
occurred. This false logic takes a form something like the following: If A
is true, we should see B. We see B. Therefore A is must be true. Sounds
reasonable, doesn’t it? But many examples can be provided to show this
approach can produce entirely wrong conclusions. For instance,
consider: If there is a total eclipse of the sun, it should be dark outside.
It is dark outside. Therefore, there must be a total eclipse of the sun.
This thinking can be faculty because B can be due to other reasons
besides A.
An evolutionist then might reason: If evolution is true, we should see
changes in animals. We do see changes in animals. Therefore evolution
must be true. But the changes we see in animals such as the tortoises
are due to their genomes which permit some variation, but they are not
due to Darwinian evolution. For example, the animals that descended
from the “cat kind” which left Noah’s ark have taken on various different
appearances and sizes, but they are all clearly cats. No part-cat, part-
non-cat has ever been documented. The changes in felines down
through the ages have been limited.
The human race today also displays many differences in appearance,
but we are all clearly human. We are all descended from the original
pair of humans, Adam and Eve, and also from the four couples aboard
the ark. While different in some respects, we are all perfectly alike in
one crucial way. We are all sinful creatures in desperate need of a
Savior. And we all indeed do have a Savior. We are being offered total
forgiveness of our sins and the assurance that through faith in Jesus
Christ, heaven will be our future home. “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and
you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).
PRINT (Black type on white background)
***************************************************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new
post? Just e-mail your request to [admin@lutheranscience.org].
***************************************************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Where is the world’s longest bridge over water?
***************************************************************************
18 Comments
Nutcracker wrote: How do you know that all cats form a single "kind"?
How do you know that, say, house cats and lions aren't separate
"kinds"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: They could be, I suppose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Possibly, my first comment didn't connect.
But, to follow up on Nutcracker, the fact is that we have some 30 cat
"kinds" and 30 dog "kinds" today, almost all of them wild. The huge
claim of your creationists is that they "instantly" evolved from just a few
general "kinds" on the Ark. This is bogus. You would never need such
foolishness if you weren't wasting at least 90% of the Ark's space on
extinct species such as scores of dinosaur "kinds" and more "recent"
megafauna as well. Let me repeat here what I always say, that if you
deal properly with the Word and the works of God, there's no conflict.
Your ICR's flawed scenario tells a different story entirely. GLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Unless GLL was there taking notes at the time the
animals left the ark (and I doubt that he was), it is a bit arrogant to say
how many “created kinds” among dogs and cats presently exist. Just as
evolutionists can’t always agree on what a “species” is, creationists may
differ at times when it comes to “kinds.” According to Dr. Gary Parker,
there are “lumpers” and “splitters” in both evolutionist and creationist
camps. So, depending on which camp you lean toward, there could be
as many as 28 cat species or as few as one! Bible-believing geneticists
have no problem understanding how we could have such a variety of
cats today, all of whom have descended from one or a few cat species
or kinds. Remember that "kind" is a broader term than "species" and
can include more than one species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: If you can't tell how many "kinds" of cats there are,
doesn't this contradict your position that "kinds" are discrete biological
units and that intermediate body plans are non-existent? You're
absolutely right in saying that biologists sometimes have a difficult time
delimiting between species, but that's because species are not
immutable -- they are transient in time. According to creationists, this
isn't so with "kinds".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Warren - I trust Gary Parker for nothing,
least of all his take on Grand Canyon (Flood) geology. But, hey, let's
look at just the last 50,000,000 years of Deep Time geology (which your
Fundamentalists sadly suppose to be from AFTER the Flood, including
maybe a few surviving dinosaurs). John Morris told me himself that the
Yucatan impact happened "very late" in the Flood account. So tell me,
please, about Smilodon, from after the Flood in your scenario. Did it
and the house cat have a common ancestor on the Ark? Why do its
bones show possibly only a trace of C-14 in them, as compared to the
bones of Egyptian cats living roughly within the same post-Flood period,
in your scenario? The same for the direwolf. Why would you want it
using up space and provisions on the Ark, when it could have been
safely extinct before the Flood? If you'd get real about the C-14 of the
Neolithic (and a worldwide Flood leaving no evidence at all, so that we
must "walk by faith" here also, "not by sight"), you'd find the bones of
big, small, and fast dogs, all of good use to people before the Flood. So
let them all be with Noah, so that God determined the "kind" as he sent
every other animal to the Ark. Same for cats, rodents, horses, and all
the rest. Don't forget the wonderful elephants of Deep Time, to tell us
how they also "evolved" instantly as they left the Ark. "Put not your trust
in princes," God says. Nor even court clowns. GLL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Gerhold, in view of the fact that I have yet to hear of
a single person who agrees with your strange views, especially
regarding “created fossils” and a tranquil Flood, I would think your
dismissal of Dr. Parker’s writings would carry very little weight. Rather,
we should be rejoicing that this former evolutionist was convinced from
creation science that he was wrong and has now become a Christian.
The story of his conversion apparently contains a humorous anecdote
of a time when as a member of the science department at a Christian
college he was on a panel debating creation/evolution with the Bible
department. It was the science department that was defending the Bible
and the religion department which was defending evolution. How
humorous and yet how sad!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Editor, don't you also believe that God created
the universe with the appearance of false history?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Nutcracker, Mr. John Woidke, who wrote the two-part
essay “A Letter From Grandpa” (you will find a link to this document on
this website’s home page), has requested that you read and comment
on his paper. If you would be willing to do this, you can use the
comments box on any post for your comments. Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Warren - Several years back, a WELS
district president and a WELS seminary professor supported the
possibility of created fossils on the pages of our WELS monthly.
Individually, WELS friends with science doctorates came to my same
conclusion before they ever met me or heard of what I was doing. And
our entire seminary faculty met on the question in the fall of 1994 and
told me that "my" theory deserved equal time with Flood theory (so that
our thinking should follow the evidence for or against either position).
You don't do that. --- In 1996, our Minnesota District convention
"thanked God" for my work, and let me pass around a sheet for delegate
comments. Three laymen of longer church experience told me that they
could remember up to maybe ten individuals in their home parish who
would have left WELS on the issue of flawed Lutheran "science" vs.
evolutionism. Before that convention, I had sent 160 parishes material
vs. Flood geology. It included a sketch of the geology of the Alberta
badlands (where you find more different dinosaurs than anywhere else
in the world except for maybe China/Mongolia). With the bones in 500
feet of strata, tracks of these dinosaurs have been found on at least
100 levels (average of 5 feet apart). The badlands sit on top of thick
Paleozoic "Flood" geology, so how can your LSI honestly claim that the
dinosaurs were still running freely about months after they should all
have been drowned, if that ever happened? For the Bible still to be true
in the face of so much evidence for Deep Time, the only credible answer
worth any respect has to be: All Created Thus (part of a "virtual
history"). Oh, yes - The chairman of the committee answering me at the
convention told me on his own that he thought that a created geology
was the best answer. So, now you know. GLL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Gerhold, I know nothing about the events you
mention above. All I know is that people with whom I have had
discussions regarding your science find your views on “created fossils”
and a tranquil Flood to be ridiculous. Also, if my memory serves me,
the only person who has commented on this blog and found anything
positive to say about your science is an evolutionist!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Warren - In one of his many informed
essays, Stephen Gould (also an atheist of note) said that science has
nothing at all to fault in the Omphalos theory (as opposed to faulting
everything claimed for Flood geology). If you want "ridiculous," you can
Google for: WELS dinosaurs (several pages through). Start with
"Dinosaurmania," and ask yourself if good people should try harder to
get real. And what do you say when postings on WELS Q&A contradict
you? GLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Thanks, Editor. I have read the "Letter from
Grandpa" and would be more than happy to reply to Mr. Woidke if you
would be willing to link my reply to the original letter. Woidke does
frame the letter as a "discussion", after all, and a discussion entails a
two-way exchange of ideas.
In the meantime, why not answer the question I just posed to you: don't
you also believe that God created the universe with false history?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Mr. Woidke is an elderly man who does not have
Internet access and so would be unable to engage in a verbal tennis
match with you like you seem to enjoy. What he wants, I believe, is to
find out how you would respond to the points he brings up. So, a short
response that would not be published but would be sent to him for him
to digest would be appreciated. However, it is up to you.
As for your question, no, a holy God would not create a false history,
but I would agree there is a not-yet-completely-understood history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Thanks, Editor. It's difficult to write a short
response to such a long letter, but I'll figure something out.
I'm glad you agree that God would not create a false history. You must
think that Adam must not have a belly button. But how do you explain
distant starlight, particularly from such things as exploding stars?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Greetings, Nutcracker. With all due respect, as an
evolutionist you are the last person to be complaining about a “false
history.” You believe the world is 4.5 billion years old; so why does the
Earth look so young and active, with its vast array of living creatures, its
violent storms, earthquakes, moving tectonic plates, volcanoes, etc.? It
is not some dead rock floating in space like an asteroid or the moon.
You believe dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago; so why do we find
so many dinosaur fossils still with soft tissue? You believe types of
animals can evolve into completely different types of animals; so where
are all the transitional fossils?
I figured you would bring up the starlight travel problem for creationists,
which is why I spoke of a “not-yet-completely-understood” history.
Creationists presently have only theories, such as that deep space time
is different from near-Earth time (as Albert Einstein suggested) and can
account of the long ages seen in starlight. But, of course, as I have
mentioned before, evolutionists have their own starlight travel time
problem (the horizon problem) to worry about. As for Adam possibly/
probably not having a belly button, what’s the problem? He did not have
a mother.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Incidentally, Editor, it's funny that you should argue
that the earth looks young because it isn't "dead" like asteroids or the
moon. Are you arguing that these celestial bodies are, in fact, quite
old?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Warren - Certainly, Adam had a navel.
Remember, at Creation already God knew that his Son would
have to be the Savior of a sin/death world. Nothing about God
changes. So if in our New Testament age we are to "walk by faith"
only, then this had to be the same will of God in Old Testament times.
Adam's lack of a navel for 900-some years would have been a
"walk by sight" proof for a fallen, gainsaying humanity that they were,
in fact, a result of God's Creation. How could God allow that, when
today we have only the witness of a preached Word to believe?
Adam's job was to be a preacher as well, with no visual aids to help him
prove Creation. Just the Word.
In my former note, I failed to take you to task for dismissing everything
that I had just told you about people of science & orthodox religion
agreeing with the Omphalos answer that I accept. So, is any historical
fact real only if YOU are a personal witness of it? Fittingly, the opposite
side of this coin is that you DO accept as fact everything that Delugian
"science" claims without anybody (!) giving it to you as an observed fact.
Amity stems first from mutual respect. GLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Regarding Adam’s navel, I at least left the door open
for either possibility by saying “possibly/probably.” But it makes sense
that he likely didn’t because why would he need an umbilical cord? On
the other hand, you act like God with your usual “know it all” attitude and
say emphatically that he did have a navel.
Regarding Noah’s Flood, I accept as fact what the Bible says about the
springs of the great deep BURSTING FORTH (Genesis 7:11, NIV1984)
or the foundations of the great deep BROKEN OPEN (KJV) and what
seems reasonable by looking at God’s world.
Anyway, this discussion has now reached 18 comments, which is long
enough, so I am closing it down.
NOTE ON VISITOR COMMENTS: The visitor comments box on this
site has been temporarily removed because of an inordinate amount
of spam coming through it. We still invite your comments, but
please either (1) e-mail your comments using our e-mail address
(admin@lutheranscience.org) remembering to indicate the date of the
post on which you want your comments to appear or (2) use the
blogspot site by clicking on the link at the top of the page. Sorry for
any inconvenience.
Friday, Jan. 13, 2012 Prefer to read this post in Blogspot? Click Here. PRINT
The Qingdao Haiwan Bridge (aka Jiaozhou Bay Bridge) in northwest
China covers 26.4 miles, making it the world’s longest sea bridge.
The bridge opened in June, cost an estimated $2.3 billion, and
required enough steel to build seven Empire State Buildings. (Photo from
Wikipedia)
Source: Discover (November, 2011)
China covers 26.4 miles, making it the world’s longest sea bridge.
The bridge opened in June, cost an estimated $2.3 billion, and
required enough steel to build seven Empire State Buildings. (Photo from
Wikipedia)
Source: Discover (November, 2011)
The opinions expressed
here are those of The
Editor and do not
necessarily represent
the views of the Lutheran
Science Institute. Please
note that links in older
posts may be broken.
here are those of The
Editor and do not
necessarily represent
the views of the Lutheran
Science Institute. Please
note that links in older
posts may be broken.
About Me - Warren Krug
The Editor
Decades ago I attended a
so-called Lutheran
university where I could
have lost my faith. The
science professors promoted
the theory of evolution and
made fun of anybody who
believed in the account of
creation as presented in
the book of Genesis.
Thanks be to God, some
creationist literature and
the Bible soon helped get
me back on the right track.
Ever since then I have
taken an active interest in
the creation/evolution
controversy.
Background image from NASA
The Editor
Decades ago I attended a
so-called Lutheran
university where I could
have lost my faith. The
science professors promoted
the theory of evolution and
made fun of anybody who
believed in the account of
creation as presented in
the book of Genesis.
Thanks be to God, some
creationist literature and
the Bible soon helped get
me back on the right track.
Ever since then I have
taken an active interest in
the creation/evolution
controversy.
Background image from NASA
