u/Training_Rent1093

Gonna keep it short and simple: What's the creationist response to Archaeopteryx and Maiacetus?

We have the transitional fossils of the transitional fossils of the transitional fossils nowadays. These guys are just the mascots. We now have birds with teeth, birds with teeth and claws in the wings, birds with teeth, tail and claws in the wings, all in chronological order until you get creatures that are very different from birds, and so on until you only get worms. The same for almost all lineages, specially vertebrates and arthropods. I can cite the genera.

This exactly what we expected to find if evolution was real. These are not incomplete creative interpretations, the fossils are complete and articulated.

So, what argument would be capable of denying the pillars of evolution that literally show up in the rocks every week?

A good group tends to defend a literal creation in 7 days, thus absurdly denying evolution and geology. What this group doesn't observe is that the group that most lives according to this are the flat-earthers.

And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let it separate water from water.”

And God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.

And it was so.

And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

Genesis 1:6-8

What is this water? I asked some Adventist friends and they said it was the atmosphere, that the Hebrews didn't have a word for it and used the word water. Doesn't air exist in Hebrew? And this expanse/firmament, what is it? Apparently it's below the waters above?

Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens.

Psalm 148:4

Again, water above the heavens themselves. There are several other passages talking about how the sky is as hard as iron, that the earth and the sky are supported by immovable pillars, but these can easily be dismissed by fundamentalists as poetic language. The ones I brought up, not, especially when you take Genesis literally.

Of course, the only guys who really take this seriously are the guys who believe that the sky is a dome supported by the icy rim of a disc called Earth.

So, any objections from you?

Uma galera boa tende a defender uma criação literal em 7 dias e com isso uma negação absurda da evolução e da geologia. O que esta galera não observa é que o grupo que mais vive de acordo com isso são os terraplanistas.

E disse Deus: Haja uma expansão no meio das águas, e haja separação entre águas e águas.

E fez Deus a expansão, e fez separação entre as águas que estavam debaixo da expansão e as águas que estavam sobre a expansão; e assim foi.

E chamou Deus à expansão Céus, e foi a tarde e a manhã, o dia segundo.

Gênesis 1:6-8

O que é essa água?? Perguntei a alguns amigos adventistas e eles disseram que era a atmosfera, que os hebreus não tinham uma palavra pra ela e usaram a palavra água.

Ar não existe no hebreu?? E essa expansão/firmamento, é oq? Aparentemente fica abaixo das águas de cima?

Louvai-o, céus dos céus, e as águas que estão sobre os céus.

Salmos 148:4

Mais uma vez, água sobre o próprio céu.

Existem várias outras passagens falando como o céu é duro como ferro, que a terra e o céu são sustentados por colunas imóveis, mas elas podem facilmente ser desconsideradas pelos fundamentalistas como linguagem poética.

Essas que eu trouxe, não, especialmente quando vc leva o Gênesis literalmente.

Claro, os únicos caras que realmente levam isso a sério são os caras que acreditam que o céu é um domo sustentado pela borda de gelo de um disco chamado Terra.

E aí, alguma objeção de vcs?

I usually see many apologists use profecies in the bible to prove their beliefs are true. It's outside the scope of this sub discuss if they have logic in their sayings. It's reasonable to say that creationists believe that these arguments hold water.

You know, i'm something of a prophet myself.

I'm a writer, and when i was in my early teens i wrote a story about a "protomammal". There is this scene about him coming out of the egg and i needed to describe this egg. There was no fossil of a protomammal egg discovered at that point, maybe it not even had eggs in the first place!

So i started to think in evolution mode: Not all mammals give birth, as platypus and echidnas lay eggs. Their eggs have soft shells. In fact, all vertebrates that lay eggs with shells do it with soft shells, with the exception of those that give birth and dinossaurs (including birds), that lay eggs with a hard shell.

If you think in evolution mode, then you can say that the ancestor of these animals laid eggs with a soft shell and this is a default caracteristic of them. So, i described the egg of the protomammal as a soft shell one.

~10 years later, last month, the first egg of a protomammal is found. A little embryo encased in fetal position by an invisible shell. Hard egg shells usually are more easily preserved than the embryo. In turn, soft shells are very rare in the fossil record. This can only mean one thing: the guy was encased by a soft shell.

Very cool right? A 13yo boy with basic evolution knowledge can make predictions about the future.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Biologists do this all the time: 4 winged dinosaurs, filter feeding anomalocarids, transitional legged fish, legged snakes, bipedal monkeys, bilaterally simetric "starfish", gilled "sea urchins, gliding arboreal proto-winged insect"... Even the concept of transitional fossils itself!

All predicted before the guys were even found in the rocks of distant past.

Creation guys, please say to me: do you guys have arguments to deny all the profecies? Why your profecies matter and our don't?