The fossil record shows there never was evolution.

[Sonnet]

'Epoch' is a compromise between what God says and secularists say.

God defines the word days in context in Gen. 1:5 "God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day."..... 24 hour days.

Rather, however long that day lasted.

From the straight forward reading of Gods Word, how can Christians fit millions of years into the Bible? Here are a few answers as to why "epochs" contradicts scripture.

A Theologian Answers
Dr Peter Barnes, lecturer in church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. He wrote: “…if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer…. The theological argument is also compelling. According to the Bible, there was no death until there was sin. The creation is cursed only after Adam sinned (cf. Genesis 3; Romans 5:12–21; 8:19–25). This implies that all the fossils of dead animals must date from after Adam’s fall. If there was blood and violence in the creation before Adam sinned, the theological structure of the biblical message would appear to suffer considerable dislocation"

A Hebrew Scholar Answers (who does not believe Genesis)
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".

By the middle of the 19th century many Christian geologist accepted that the rock layers found in the geologic column are not consistent with evidence one would expect from the Noachian flood.

How do you respond?

 

[Sonnet]

This kind of blind fundamentalism is pathetic, and in this case, also embarrassing.

Your evidence?

 

[Sonnet]

Bs"d

I'm curious - Bs"d means what?

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Revelation 4:11 (regarding God)
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

John 1:3 (regarding Jesus)
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Therefore, in terms of Creation at least, there is an equivalence between Christ and God.

john 1:3 is not speaking of Jesus.

It is speaking of Gods word, of His light, of His Spirit.

LA

 

[Elia]

I'm curious - Bs"d means what?

Bs"d

The above is an abbreviation of the Aramaic expression "Ba siata desmaya", and that means: "With the help of Heaven".

 

[Sonnet]

Bs"d

The above is an abbreviation of the Aramaic expression "Ba siata desmaya", and that means: "With the help of Heaven".

ta

 

[Sonnet]

john 1:3 is not speaking of Jesus.

It is speaking of Gods word, of His light, of His Spirit.

LA

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it.

There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

(John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ”) Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

 

[Sonnet]

john 1:3 is not speaking of Jesus.

It is speaking of Gods word, of His light, of His Spirit.

LA

Who was Jesus?

 

[Sonnet]

We know he wasn't Michael - Hebrews 1.

To which of the angels did he ever say, 'thou art my son...'

 

[6days]

Rather, however long that day lasted.

The creation days were 24 hour periods of time. Although the word 'yom' / day can mean shorter or longer periods of time, the meaning is always understood by the context. There are several markers / indicators that do not allow for anything other than 24 hour creation days.

By the middle of the 19th century many Christian geologist accepted that the rock layers found in the geologic column are not consistent with evidence one would expect from the Noachian flood.
How do you respond?

Perhaps every Christian geologist had compromised at that time not realizing the effect their compromise had on the gospel..... and not realizing how this compromise lead future generations to believe the Bible was inaccurate, and not very relevant.

 

[Jose Fly]

Bs"d

So the question becomes whether you persist in this quote mining out of stupidity or dishonesty.

As Gould says very clearly: Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

So it is clear enough that between species, there are no transitional forms.

So it must be stupidity. What else explains your inability to understand that "generally lacking" is not the same as "completely non-existent"?

Again: Evolution is totally lacking in the fossil record.

No, actually it's not.

From where do you get that utterly crazy idea that "in science quotes are pretty much meaningless"???

From the fact that I work in science, read scientific journals, attend conferences, and discuss science with my colleagues, and no one ever takes something as true merely because someone says it is. That's why scientific papers have sections where the scientists describe how they collected and analyzed the data, and how it led to their conclusions. That's why presentations at scientific conferences do the same.

Data is what matters.

It is very VERY important what the evolutionst experts say on the matter.

And as we've seen, the one you like to quote the most (Gould) says transitional fossils are abundant and anyone who tries to quote him as saying otherwise is either stupid or a liar.

Do you agree with the fact that if the dinosaurs gradually evolved into birds,that the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous, and that then every geological formation and every stratum must be full of such intermediate links between dino's and birds?

You dodged the question. Remember, we're determining whether transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds exist. So again, if birds are evolved descendants of dinosaurs, we would expect to find fossil specimens that show this transition. Specifically, we would expect to find specimens that show a mixture of dino-like and bird-like features.

Do you agree with that?

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Nice quote mine. It's fascinating how some folks claiming to be on the side of God are so consistently dishonest.

 

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps every Christian geologist had compromised at that time not realizing the effect their compromise had on the gospel..... and not realizing how this compromise lead future generations to believe the Bible was inaccurate, and not very relevant.

You can actually read the writings of many of them. Some of them describe how painful it was to have to ditch their previous beliefs about the flood and such, and they knew full well what that meant for their theology. But being good scientists, they also knew they had to follow the data wherever it led.

 

[chair]

Bs"d

I call it realism. It's pathetic when people cannot accept the fact that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, even though scores of evolutionist experts say so in unison.

That's what is called cognitive dissonance.

...and I suppose you have some conspiracy theory to explain why the vast majority of biologists think Evolution makes sense.

The bottom line is that the creatures that inhabited the Earth ages ago were different than what inhabits the Earth today. The fossil record is not complete, but there are plenty of examples of how species developed.

As I said- you are an embarrassment.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The Noachian flood remains problematic - rock layers are not consistent with a single catastrophic deluge.

That depends on how you expect the landscape to change during the catastrophic deluge and whether you expect any additional changes to happen throughout the millennium following the deluge.

 

[Crucible]

Whether evolutionists want to accept it or not, the fossil record is a problem. What is also a problem is how, incidentally, the Deluge just happens to be a mighty explanation for a myriad of things, right down to the fossils and fuels themselves.

Evolutionists don't want to admit that they talked too much, having become arrogant, and giving evolution a lot more praise and solidarity then is actually warranted.

 

[Elia]

...and I suppose you have some conspiracy theory to explain why the vast majority of biologists think Evolution makes sense.

Bs"d

That's probably because they are not palaeontologists.

But here is what a biologist says about "evolutionary biology":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne

Jerry Allen Coyne (born 1949) is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate.

"Of Vice and Men, A Case Study of Evolutionary Psychology" By Jerry Allan Coyne

"In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology (schedelmeting) than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.

The latest dead weight dragging us closer to phrenology is "evolutionary psychology," or the science formerly known as sociobiology, which studies the evolutionary roots of human behavior. There is nothing inherently wrong with this enterprise, and it has proposed some intriguing theories, particularly about the evolution of language. The problem is that evolutionary psychology suffers from the scientific equivalent of megalomania. Most of its adherents are convinced that virtually every human action or feeling, including depression, homosexuality, religion, and consciousness, was put directly into our brains by natural selection. In this view, evolution becomes the key--the only key--that can unlock our humanity.
Unfortunately, evolutionary psychologists routinely confuse theory and speculation. Unlike bones, behavior does not fossilize, and understanding its evolution often involves concocting stories that sound plausible but are hard to test. Depression, for example, is seen as a trait favored by natural selection to enable us to solve our problems by withdrawing, reflecting, and hence enhancing our future reproduction. Plausible? Maybe. Scientifically testable? Absolutely not. If evolutionary biology is a soft science, then evolutionary psychology is its flabby underbelly."

The bottom line is that the creatures that inhabited the Earth ages ago were different than what inhabits the Earth today. The fossil record is not complete, but there are plenty of examples of how species developed.

That's what you say. And now what somebody who actually knows what he is talking about says about that:

"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163



"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."

Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40

As I said- you are an embarrassment.

The usual pattern; when people don't have arguments any more, they start name-calling.

 

[Elia]

So the question becomes whether you persist in this quote mining out of stupidity or dishonesty.

Bs"d

One way ticket to my ignore list.

Have a nice life.

 

[Jose Fly]

Bs"d

One way ticket to my ignore list.

Have a nice life.

 

[Jose Fly]

Whether evolutionists want to accept it or not, the fossil record is a problem. What is also a problem is how, incidentally, the Deluge just happens to be a mighty explanation for a myriad of things, right down to the fossils and fuels themselves.

Evolutionists don't want to admit that they talked too much, having become arrogant, and giving evolution a lot more praise and solidarity then is actually warranted.

Interesting, coming from a person who's never studied the fossil record.

 

[Jose Fly]

So how about we approach this issue of the existence vs. non-existence of transitional fossils this way....

Can any creationist here define the term "transitional fossil"?