Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[Right Divider]

You beg the question. Why is the creation account supposedly more accurate? Also even more important: what is the creationists account of the fossil record?

Are you really that clueless of the model that you oppose?

 

[Idolater]

Historians usually write about events they did not witness.

What is likely to be more accurate: an array of fossils across time in various layers of sedimentary rock or a few words scrawled down by humans?

They are both physical evidence. Only one of them was influenced or even directed by an intelligent being.

 

[Skeeter]

Absolutely... only variation and adaption based on already existing genes.

The Nile isn't just a river. It's a hotbed for fossils.

Continuing to conflate terms is dishonest.
What you call "speciation" is NOT the kind of "evolution" that your theory requires.
Speciation is completely and fully compatible with the CREATION MODEL.

I honestly did not realize you believe in evolution of kinds into other kinds as long as all the many original kinds started at he flood.

What about it? Billions of death things buried during a global flood.

Why were so many sea creatures made extinct at that time?

We also do not see partial organs... partial limbs... i.e. the things we should see if your "theory" were true.

This is a misunderstanding of the theory implying a purposeful building towards something in particular. We know what the development resulted in but the process was more blind than that. During the course of evolution tinkering with existing structures occurs that cumulates. The intermediate forms may be functional in different ways. Vestigal organs can disappear or be repurposed.

Indeed, many went extinct during the global flood.

We do not see a mass extinction event at that time.

Since the fossil record is the result of a global flood, your interpretation of what you see is wrong.

Why do paleontologists see geographic evidence of the passage of time along side evolution?

Nope. That's your vivid imagination at work again. Does it get paid overtime?

Calling things fairy tales and products of imagination alone butters no parsnips.

 

[Idolater]

You beg the question. Why is the creation account supposedly more accurate? Also even more important: what is the creationists account of the fossil record?

Rings. Tree rings. When God created the trees that day, He made full and complete trees, and trees have rings. We know now that when a tree begins as a germ, a seed, it begins the process of adding rings and it takes years for the rings to add.

It is not unreasonable to think that the universe, if it was imagined to be an organism like a tree, that began with a 'seed' (the Big Bang?), would also 'add rings' as it developed. Since this universe did not actually develop according to the six day creation theory, God simply must have made a fully developed universe, just like He made fully developed trees, for the Garden of Eden and the whole earth.

I think the fossil record is actually more evidence that God exists rather than the opposite, because once we discovered just how statistically improbable it was for life to generate by strictly natural causes, the evidence would strongly point, once again, to our Maker.

 

[ok doser]

Are you really that clueless ...

 

[Skeeter]

Rings. Tree rings. When God created the trees that day, He made full and complete trees, and trees have rings. We know now that when a tree begins as a germ, a seed, it begins the process of adding rings and it takes years for the rings to add.

Oh, just like Texas Roadhouse designs its new restaurants with an old-timey aesthetic?

It is not unreasonable to think that the universe, if it was imagined to be an organism like a tree, that began with a 'seed' (the Big Bang?), would also 'add rings' as it developed. Since this universe did not actually develop according to the six day creation theory, God simply must have made a fully developed universe, just like He made fully developed trees, for the Garden of Eden and the whole earth.

Do we have fossil record of the trees in the garden of Eden? How do we know they did not have one big ring each?

I think the fossil record is actually more evidence that God exists rather than the opposite, because once we discovered just how statistically improbable it was for life to generate by strictly natural causes, the evidence would strongly point, once again, to our Maker.

Seems like a convenient rationalization. But, I give you credit for not going the outright denial route. That's a bore.

 

[Skeeter]

Are you really that clueless of the model that you oppose?

I have not been opposing any model. I am trying to understand how the model of evolution is supported.

Where have you offered a concise description of your model?

 

[Right Divider]

The Nile isn't just a river.

You're only making a fool out of yourself.

It's a hotbed for fossils.

Fossils are a record of a global flood.

I honestly did not realize you believe in evolution of kinds into other kinds as long as all the many original kinds started at he flood.

Kinds do NOT change into other kinds. That is your fairy tale and has nothing to do with the truth.

Why were so many sea creatures made extinct at that time?

Because they were BURIED in sediment.

This is a misunderstanding of the theory implying a purposeful building towards something in particular.

It is required by your theory. You should probably learn about the theory you're trying to defend before trying to defend it.

We know what the development resulted in but the process was more blind than that.

Fairy tale.

During the course of evolution tinkering with existing structures occurs that cumulates.

Fairy tale.

The intermediate forms may be functional in different ways.

Fairy tale.

Vestigal organs can disappear or be repurposed.

There is no such thing as a "vestigal" organ. That was a myth that was busted a long time ago.

We do not see a mass extinction event at that time.

You don't see a lot of things.

Why do paleontologists see geographic evidence of the passage of time along side evolution?

No doubt you're referring to "evolutionist paleontologists".

Calling things fairy tales and products of imagination alone butters no parsnips.

I'm just telling you the truth.

 

[Right Divider]

I have not been opposing any model. I am trying to understand how the model of evolution is supported.

It's not supported (i.e., the idea of molecules-to-humans by naturalistic philosophical means).

Where have you offered a concise description of your model?

God created kinds of plants and animals that reproduce after their kind. This is actually what the observable evidence shows.

 

[Idolater]

Oh, just like Texas Roadhouse designs its new restaurants with an old-timey aesthetic?

No. Like trees.

Do we have fossil record of the trees in the garden of Eden? How do we know they did not have one big ring each?

Definitely a matter of faith, but it is a matter of faith that neither the evidence nor reason conflicts with.

Seems like a convenient rationalization. But, I give you credit for not going the outright denial route. That's a bore.

The truth is sometimes indistinguishable from a convenient rationalization.

 

[Skeeter]

It's not supported (i.e., the idea of molecules-to-humans by naturalistic philosophical means).

What does the philosophical part refer to?

It appears well supported to me.

God created kinds of plants and animals that reproduce after their kind. This is actually what the observable evidence shows.

Who observed God do that? Or do you mean just the rest is observable?


So, you are going to ignore the whole field of geology in regard to how rock layers form?

 

[Right Divider]

What does the philosophical part refer to?

Your belief in materialism.

It appears well supported to me.

Well you're not too bright.

Who observed God do that?

Who claimed that someone observed it?

Or do you mean just the rest is observable?

I mean that we clearly observe animals reproducing after their own kind.

So, you are going to ignore the whole field of geology in regard to how rock layers form?

Vast areas of sedimentary rock do not get laid down gradually and uniformly. That requires a global event... like a global flood.

 

[Skeeter]

Who claimed that someone observed it?

That would be you. That's the plain meaning of your sentence.

I mean that we clearly observe animals reproducing their own kind.

You will never see a new kind in an example I can give because observable births of one generation to the next will always be similar enough for YOU to interpret it as the same kind.

Birds of different species who mate and produce hybrid offspring that can only mate with their hybrid agemates and not the parent species will be called the same kind by you.

Vast areas of sedimentary rock do not get laid down gradually and uniformly. That requires a global event... like a global flood.

You pretend to be more well versed in this than geologists?

 

[Right Divider]

That would be you. That's the plain meaning of your sentence.

I never made such a claim which makes you a liar.

You will never see a new kind in an example I can give because observable births of one generation to the next will always be similar enough for YOU to interpret it as the same kind.

Then you need SOMETHING to support your claim. You have nothing but your vivid imagination.

Birds of different species who mate and produce hybrid offspring that can only mate with their hybrid agemates and not the parent species will be called the same kind by you.

Yes, they are ALL BIRDS!

You pretend to be more well versed in this than geologists?

 

[Skeeter]

I never made such a claim which makes you a liar.

God created kinds of plants and animals that reproduce after their kind. This is actually what the observable evidence shows.

"This" can be interpreted to mean your whole previous sentence. The ambiguity is the result of poor writing.

Then you need SOMETHING to support your claim. You have nothing but your vivid imagination.

The convergence of what we can infer from observable evolution and the fossil record is compelling proof.

Yes, they are ALL BIRDS!

Told you so. Part of your shell game is to ask for proof in certain areas with standards you yourself do not apply in other areas of your beliefs.

 

[Right Divider]

"This" can be interpreted to mean your whole previous sentence. The ambiguity is the result of poor writing.

You could have easily understood my "poor writing". I was CLEARLY talking about the reproduction and not the creation.

The convergence of what we can infer from observable evolution and the fossil record is compelling proof.

Not in the slightest. You are just seeing what you want to see.

The fossil record is evidence for global flood and not some gradualism.

What you call "observable evolution" is only variation and adaption based on existing genes. Nothing NEW is observed.

Told you so.

Birds are birds. So what?

Part of your shell game is to ask for proof in certain areas with standards you yourself do not apply in other areas of your beliefs.

Are birds not still birds?

Come up with some actual support for your theory.

 

[JudgeRightly]

We do not see a mass extinction event at that time.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees...

Why do paleontologists see geographic evidence of the passage of time along side evolution?

Confirmation bias. They see it because they want it to be there.

 

[Skeeter]

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

Okay. Divider divided the forest into clusters and missed the interconnectedness of all species of animals.

Confirmation bias. They see it because they want it to be there.

The multi-method multi-lab approach with double blind controls argues against confirmation bias.

 

[Right Divider]

Okay. Divider divided the forest into clusters and missed the interconnectedness of all species of animals.

The so-called interconnectedness does NOT ipso facto indicate a descendant relationship. No matter how much you wish that it did.

The multi-method multi-lab approach with double blind controls argues against confirmation bias.

More bluff and bluster (a common tactic of evolutionists).

 

[JudgeRightly]

Okay. Divider divided the forest into clusters and missed the interconnectedness of all species of animals.

Don't change the subject. We're talking about what you call (through confirmation bias) the "fossil record."

You said, begging the question that the "fossil record" is actually record of the past, with each layer being it's own era:

We do not see a mass extinction event at that time.

And by "that time" you are referring to a point in the above "record" about 5 thousand years ago, where we "see no mass extinction event." In other words, "It's not where it would be if we were right, therefore it never happened."

All that, you say, while missing the fact that the entire "fossil record," from the bottom-most layer to the top, is the result of the global flood.

That's why I said you were missing the forest for the trees. You're too focused on the individual layers, that you cannot see the whole picture.

The multi-method multi-lab approach with double blind controls argues against confirmation bias.

Only when it's actually used, and it's not.