Fossils are fake

[busterdog]

with a title like 'talk origins'.. you might thing that people would be open minded about origins.. but that lot have made up their mind already, and it's pointless arguing with people like that.. what get's up my nose, is the condescending attitude.. 'we know better' and there's no-one over there that accepts creation.. they are all hard-nosed evolutionists, so it's totally biased, and the information is not good.. I won't go back there, but I saw a line up of the fossil sculls of various hominids, and they had two totally different species named as 'homo habilus' I can see just by looking at the sculls and comparing them to other sculls that they are from another grouping..

Well, I mostly agree. This is just a polarized debate. I dont bother going there unless I really need to know what to argue against, suggesting that I am polarized. But, I have other things to do that weed through the snide-ness to get to information.

 

[MorkandMindy]

That is one of my favourite geocentrist verses. I also love the verse where he tells us people are animals
...
Ecclesiastes may be poetry, but it is also the writer attempting to understand the nature of the world around him and, well, the Meaning of Life basically.
...
The writer meant what he said about the sun going around the earth and the water cycle. Although he seem to suggest rivers flow to the sea and return to their source underground, the writer does realise that there is a water cycle and that the ocean aren't simply filling up.

Who wrote Ecclesiastes, God or man?
Are we supposed to believe it or do we really have a 65 book Bible?

 

[Assyrian]

So you are a Geocentrist Poe too?

 

[MorkandMindy]

...
Ecclesiastes may be poetry, but it is also the writer attempting to understand the nature of the world around him and, well, the Meaning of Life basically.

... It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out. This is a biblical mandate for science and scientific research, and if the writer of Ecclesiastes was not quite accurate in his description of the water cycle and solar system, the bible says he was right trying to search these things out.

If Ecclesiastes is the writing of a man and contains errors then it isn't the infallible Word of God.

Is there a book of the Bible you would say is trustworthy?

What is your ultimate source of Christian knowledge?

 

[MorkandMindy]

So you are a Geocentrist Poe too?

That is a very interesting question.


I've never heard of Fundamentalists trying to uphold Ecclesiastes 1.5:

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

It contains 2 statements as I read it:

1. The Sun goes up and down
2. The Sun spends less time under the Earth travelling back to where it starts than going up and down (and presumably across East to West).


1. From a country such as up here in England (or Ireland, the Sun is the thing that lights up the rain clouds), the sun never gets overhead and is mainly travelling across the sky.

In Rome that description was also used with a chariot pulling the Sun across the sky. But the closer the observer is to the Equator the more the Sun appears to go up and over.

2. If you keep a diary of your day you are likely to find you have done a lot of things in it. A diary of the night will have a lot less (especially if you are single), and it is hard to see how you could endure more than an hour of it without getting completely fed up. Until clocks were invented it would be assumed that nights were about an hour or so and days much longer, hence the sun had to hasten back to the place where it started.


Although Fundamentalists do contradict science from about 1860 onward, with the earlier scientific discoveries the public understands and accepts, they don't dare.

 

[Assyrian]

Ecclesiastes may be poetry, but it is also the writer attempting to understand the nature of the world around him and, well, the Meaning of Life basically.

... It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out. This is a biblical mandate for science and scientific research, and if the writer of Ecclesiastes was not quite accurate in his description of the water cycle and solar system, the bible says he was right trying to search these things out.

If Ecclesiastes is the writing of a man and contains errors then it isn't the infallible Word of God.

Well if Proverbs tells us that God has concealed things and expects people like Solomon to search out the truth of science, and then God went and gave us an inspired book that reveals all the secrets of science from heliocentrism to the Higgs boson, then the bible would contradict itself. It does what it says on the tin.

I suppose God could have given us a science textbook, though personally the idea of the crusaders with advanced nuclear technology gives me the shivers. Or he could have given us a book where share in a man's struggle to find meaning and God in all the futility and existential angst of life. The first would be clever, the second is inspired.

Is there a book of the Bible you would say is trustworthy?

It's all trustworthy.

What is your ultimate source of Christian knowledge?

That would have to be Jesus Christ, I love what he says and base my trust in scripture on trust and faith in him.

 

[Assyrian]

That is a very interesting question.

I've never heard of Fundamentalists trying to uphold Ecclesiastes 1.5:

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

It contains 2 statements as I read it:

1. The Sun goes up and down
2. The Sun spends less time under the Earth travelling back to where it starts than going up and down (and presumably across East to West).

1. From a country such as up here in England (or Ireland, the Sun is the thing that lights up the rain clouds),

Hey don't knock the weather it keeps the cows happy.

the sun never gets overhead and is mainly travelling across the sky.

In Rome that description was also used with a chariot pulling the Sun across the sky. But the closer the observer is to the Equator the more the Sun appears to go up and over.

2. If you keep a diary of your day you are likely to find you have done a lot of things in it. A diary of the night will have a lot less (especially if you are single), and it is hard to see how you could endure more than an hour of it without getting completely fed up. Until clocks were invented it would be assumed that nights were about an hour or so and days much longer, hence the sun had to hasten back to the place where it started.

That is all very well if if you are wrapped up warm in bed at night, anyone who has to stand guard at night know just how long a night can be. Psalm 130:6 My soul longs for the Lord more than watchmen long for the morning; more than watchmen for the morning. You need to think in terms of travel back then, then knew Babylon the sun rose in the east, and people in Egypt watched it set in the west, how long would a journey like that take?

Although Fundamentalists do contradict science from about 1860 onward, with the earlier scientific discoveries the public understands and accepts, they don't dare.

I think you are seriously underestimating the willingness of fundamentalists to stand against public opinion if they think it is wrong. I do agree with your analysis that it depends on the age of the science, however this subforum is not the place to discuss it. I suspect it is because the Fundamentalist attitude to science has changed and scientific revolutions their Evangelical forebears dealt with are simply not an issue any more.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Thought I would drop by.. I see things still have not changed. Evolutionists are still breaking the rules with no moral remorse by debating here. They still using terrible arguments like saying the Bible teaches that the sun orbits the Earth. Even a small child knows better. The weather man today used the same terms on TV. "The sun rises today at 7:00am and sunset is at 7:30pm".

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I should also address the OP. I'm a young earth creationist who loves fossil collecting. I have collected by own fossils and have worked with other collectors that are evolutionists to increase my collection. I have seen fossils of fish in the process of eating another fish. This only makes sense in the case of a rapid burial. I believe most fossils were formed shortly after the flood.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

I should also address the OP. I'm a young earth creationist who loves fossil collecting. I have collected by own fossils and have worked with other collectors that are evolutionists to increase my collection. I have seen fossils of fish in the process of eating another fish. This only makes sense in the case of a rapid burial. I believe most fossils were formed shortly after the flood.

so do I. I still hear this.. ''fossilisation is a very rare event''.. it's not a rare event at all, the school class lecture will be that something fell into a swamp millions of years ago, etc.. etc.. it's obvious that the fossil record is a record of the flood.. that includes coal and oil.

 

[gluadys]

so do I. I still hear this.. ''fossilisation is a very rare event''.. it's not a rare event at all, the school class lecture will be that something fell into a swamp millions of years ago, etc.. etc.. it's obvious that the fossil record is a record of the flood.. that includes coal and oil.

You are confusing two different ideas.

Are fossils rare? Not particularly. There are many, many fossils found and many more still to be found.

Is fossilization a rare event? Yes, very much so. Think of it this way: for every organism fossilized, there were probably a hundred to several thousands like it that were not.

And for every fossil that has survived from the time of formation to today, there were probably a hundred more that have been destroyed by volcanoes, earthquakes, erosion or tectonic plate subduction.

And for every fossil we have found the are at least a hundred more we have not found yet.

So although we have found thousands upon thousands of fossils, they represent only the tiniest fraction--maybe one in a million--of all organisms that ever lived.

Fossils are plentiful. But non-fossilized life was even more abundant, because fossilization was a rare event.

 

[RobertByers]

I should also address the OP. I'm a young earth creationist who loves fossil collecting. I have collected by own fossils and have worked with other collectors that are evolutionists to increase my collection. I have seen fossils of fish in the process of eating another fish. This only makes sense in the case of a rapid burial. I believe most fossils were formed shortly after the flood.

Right on. The evidence that the sediment and life hanging around that area was collected and turned to stone by great pressure during the flood year is excellent.
I would say that most fossilized life and rock formations was created by the impact of the flood however I do insist that post flood events also created rock/life fossils. I see that great earth movements occured that made volcanos or even in small ways the sea both bring about fossilization. The line is the k-t line. Above this is the post flood actions.
The fossils above this line show a very different mammalian dominance from the previous dinosaur etc dominance. Same as in the seas.
Also I need post flood fossilization for a idea of mine where I see a constant lesson from the fossil record that shows same shaped animals historically classified as different orders, different origins, are in fact the same creatures. By this equation I say that marsupials are placentals that changed in certain areas post flood.
I wrote an essay called 'Post Flood Marsupial migration explained" by Robert Byers.
Creationist biogegraphy is still struggling, as I see it, with where in the fossil/rock record the flood should be placed.
The k-t line is the place. Above is the post flood recolonization of earth.

 

[Mallon]

Creationist biogegraphy is still struggling, as I see it, with where in the fossil/rock record the flood should be placed.
The k-t line is the place. Above is the post flood recolonization of earth.

Out of curiosity, what is it about the K-T boundary that you specifically see as the definitive dividing line between Flood and post-Flood events? What is it about the sediments on one side of the boundary that are so distinct from the sediments on the other side?

 

[GuardianShua]

Did anyone ever think of this? Why do you think it takes so long to dig up fossils? They seriously spend years chipping away rock to get one piece of bone. Maybe it's because they're ACTUALLY CARVING THE FOSSILS OUT OF STONE. Fossils are just carved stone. They were not already there. The scientists created them out of nothing.

If you just leave bones lying on the ground, which is how they are left when something dies, they do not fossilize. After years they get broken and smashed, water washes away all the calcium, and nothing is left. Fossils are just another myth to promote evolution and deny the reality of God's work.

Before the literal days of creation were taught, it was taught that those days were epochs of time. Example: God said to Adam; In the day you eat of that fruit, you will surly die. But yet Adam continued to live for hundredes of years afterward until he died. Also there is the bible verse where the prophet says; A day unto the Lord is like a thousand years... The world is very old, but Evolution is a falsehood.

 

[GuardianShua]

That is a very interesting question.


I've never heard of Fundamentalists trying to uphold Ecclesiastes 1.5:

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

It contains 2 statements as I read it:

1. The Sun goes up and down
2. The Sun spends less time under the Earth travelling back to where it starts than going up and down (and presumably across East to West).


1. From a country such as up here in England (or Ireland, the Sun is the thing that lights up the rain clouds), the sun never gets overhead and is mainly travelling across the sky.

In Rome that description was also used with a chariot pulling the Sun across the sky. But the closer the observer is to the Equator the more the Sun appears to go up and over.

2. If you keep a diary of your day you are likely to find you have done a lot of things in it. A diary of the night will have a lot less (especially if you are single), and it is hard to see how you could endure more than an hour of it without getting completely fed up. Until clocks were invented it would be assumed that nights were about an hour or so and days much longer, hence the sun had to hasten back to the place where it started.


Although Fundamentalists do contradict science from about 1860 onward, with the earlier scientific discoveries the public understands and accepts, they don't dare.

The sun going up and down is about the same as saying that it rises and sets in the horizon. The fact that the rotation of the earth is the cause is not the point. It's like poetry.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

so there are some old earthers here as well.. I used to be an old-earther, but i'm coming around to young-earth'ism.. the 1000 years as a day thing is using a type of symbol to show that God is outside of time.. not to support the day-age theory. I agree that there is a problem with how did the marsupils get to Australia. That's a big problem for creationists... perhaps i'll email Kent Hovind and see if he can come up with an answer to that one....

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

You are confusing two different ideas.

Are fossils rare? Not particularly. There are many, many fossils found and many more still to be found.

Is fossilization a rare event? Yes, very much so. Think of it this way: for every organism fossilized, there were probably a hundred to several thousands like it that were not.

And for every fossil that has survived from the time of formation to today, there were probably a hundred more that have been destroyed by volcanoes, earthquakes, erosion or tectonic plate subduction.

And for every fossil we have found the are at least a hundred more we have not found yet.

So although we have found thousands upon thousands of fossils, they represent only the tiniest fraction--maybe one in a million--of all organisms that ever lived.

Fossils are plentiful. But non-fossilized life was even more abundant, because fossilization was a rare event.

i read somewhere that there are huge fossil graveyards in some parts of the world.. can't remember where now, perhaps in the americas somewhere..

 

[GuardianShua]

so there are some old earthers here as well.. I used to be an old-earther, but i'm coming around to young-earth'ism.. the 1000 years as a day thing is using a type of symbol to show that God is outside of time.. not to support the day-age theory. I agree that there is a problem with how did the marsupils get to Australia. That's a big problem for creationists... perhaps i'll email Kent Hovind and see if he can come up with an answer to that one....

The answer to how the marsupials got to Australia is easy. Long after the flood the sea level was much lower and there were land bridges. Much of the water was in the higher elevations and the polar caps were heavy with snow. The sea level used to be about two or three hundred feet lower.

 

[Assyrian]

Thought I would drop by.. I see things still have not changed. Evolutionists are still breaking the rules with no moral remorse by debating here. They still using terrible arguments like saying the Bible teaches that the sun orbits the Earth. Even a small child knows better. The weather man today used the same terms on TV. "The sun rises today at 7:00am and sunset is at 7:30pm".

We could discuss it in the main forum if you like

 

[busterdog]

Before the literal days of creation were taught, it was taught that those days were epochs of time. Example: God said to Adam; In the day you eat of that fruit, you will surly die. But yet Adam continued to live for hundredes of years afterward until he died. Also there is the bible verse where the prophet says; A day unto the Lord is like a thousand years... The world is very old, but Evolution is a falsehood.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day [is] as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

No one ever talks about both parts of this equation. God can do thousands of years of work in a very short period of time. Or perhaps really, time is just not the same with the creator, except where he directs that it shall be.