Why do people even want to put evolution in the equation?

[Thomas White]

By His word, viz:

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were *framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." --Hebrews 11:3

2675 katartizo kat-ar-tid'-zo from 2596 and a derivative of 739; to complete thoroughly, i.e. repair (literally or figuratively) or adjust:--fit, frame, mend, (make) perfect(-ly join together), prepare, restore. see GREEK for 2596 see GREEK for 739

And what did it look like when He created it?

 

[Religiot]

An opposing view that could falsify the above position, is quite simple. In fact, the video I keep posting discusses this very concept.

Please clarify: what position, exactly? --thanks.

All one would have to do is make a case for the existence of the proverbial Cambrian bunny. Then there would be no logical connection between phylogenetic trees of paleontology and others.

..."Proverbial" ...You continue to refer to the conjectures of men as if they were conclusions in-fact... --Your missing it, I assure you.

And this would hypothetically be quite easy to do, if evolution were not true. For example, biblical literalists might suggest that fish and birds were created simultaneously, while evolution suggests that birds evolved from reptiles, reptiles from amphibians and amphibians from fish (based on phylogenies made through genome sequencing). So when we look at the fossil succession, if we find fish and birds coming about at the same time, then evolution is wrong. If we find birds coming after reptiles, after amphibians and then after fish, then evolution is right.

...how do you determine the order? --yes, I mean you.

So then all any of us has to do is grab a geologic map of the rocks around us, go out and look at fossils in the rocks and observe.

...the rocks, really? So how do you determine the age of the rocks?

And lo and behold fish appear in rocks first, then amphibians, then reptiles, then birds. And this is readily observable for anyone who cares to look for themselves. There's really nothing faith based about it. Just walk outside and look for yourself. And if you would like help in interpreting geologic maps, I'd be happy to lend a hand.

So when did you do this?

And dare I say it, your lack of response leads me to believe that perhaps you too have no response to give.

I suggest you first dare to prove your claims before daring to propose allegations about me.

Another opposing view for disproving the above:
Some people suggest that a flood deposited bones And that perhaps some animals could swim better or could run to high ground, and thus some animals drowned and were buried faster than others, thus creating the succession.

With respect, that is merely a suggestion: you must present their actual argument, along with their actual evidence, otherwise, you're not being scientific, but merely a promoter of a particular faith. (What you've presented as falsification amounts only to a suggestion at best, and a straw-man at worst.)

If this is true, we might suspect that species that cannot run and cannot swim, such as plants, might have no particular order in the rock record. Without any particular order, the succession would therefore disprove evolution as well.

okay, so strawman it was... --can't you see, that conclusions derived from strawmen are made of straw themselves?

So then all any of us has to do is grab a geologic map of the rocks around us, go out and look at fossils in the rocks and observe. And if plants are out of order, evolution is in trouble.

No, evolution doesn't get into trouble, but the people who believe it do.

Lo and behold, plant fossils are in an order suggested by evolution as well.

--again, simply answer how you determined the order?

Of course plant fossils appear initially as things like mosses and algae, and initially we have non-vascular plants. Then eventually as we look through the rock record we begin finding vascular plants, then eventually seeded plants, then eventually flowering plants.

...how did you conclude that?

So, collectively, some finds that would disprove evolution include any paleozoic mammal or bird (for which there are thousands of options, including a Cambrian bunny. The initial appearance of fish anywhere in the cenozoic or Mesozoic would also disprove evolution. The initial appearance of amphibians either in the Cambrian or anywhere in the Mesozoic or cenozoic would also disprove evolution. The initial appearance of invertebrates or arthropods anywhere in the Mesozoic or cenozoic would also disprove evolution. The appearance of any of the above, mammals reptiles, amphibians or birds, anywhere in the early to mid protozoic would also disprove evolution. Any flowering plants within or prior to the carboniferous would disprove evolution, any seeded plants observed in rocks prior to the Cambrian would also disprove evolution. Etc. There are many hypothetical possibilities that could disprove evolution. But none exist.

None, of all that you just proposed, would serve to disprove evolution, in the least, but only to create more arguments for it.

And again, there's nothing faith based about this. In fact, any of us can go and look for ourselves at any time. All you really need is a geologic map and a pair of sturdy boots. And if you would like help doing this yourself, or if you have any questions on how to do it, feel free to let me know.

So when did you do this yourself? and what were your experiments? and your conclusions? and just as important, have they been falsified or verified? and by who? and by what experitments?

 

[Job 33:6]

Why do people even want to put evolution in the equation?

An opposing view that could falsify the above position, is quite simple. In fact, the video I keep posting discusses this very concept.

All one would have to do is make a case for the existence of the proverbial Cambrian bunny. Then there would be no logical connection between phylogenetic trees of paleontology and others.

And this would hypothetically be quite easy to do, if evolution were not true. For example, biblical literalists might suggest that fish and birds were created simultaneously, while evolution suggests that birds evolved from reptiles, reptiles from amphibians and amphibians from fish (based on phylogenies made through genome sequencing). So when we look at the fossil succession, if we find fish and birds coming about at the same time, then evolution is wrong. If we find birds coming after reptiles, after amphibians and then after fish, then evolution is right.

So then all any of us has to do is grab a geologic map of the rocks around us, go out and look at fossils in the rocks and observe.

And lo and behold fish appear in rocks first, then amphibians, then reptiles, then birds. And this is readily observable for anyone who cares to look for themselves. There's really nothing faith based about it. Just walk outside and look for yourself. And if you would like help in interpreting geologic maps, I'd be happy to lend a hand.

And dare I say it, your lack of response leads me to believe that perhaps you too have no response to give.


Another opposing view for disproving the above:
Some people suggest that a flood deposited bones And that perhaps some animals could swim better or could run to high ground, and thus some animals drowned and were buried faster than others, thus creating the succession.

If this is true, we might suspect that species that cannot run and cannot swim, such as plants, might have no particular order in the rock record. Without any particular order, the succession would therefore disprove evolution as well.

So then all any of us has to do is grab a geologic map of the rocks around us, go out and look at fossils in the rocks and observe. And if plants are out of order, evolution is in trouble.

Lo and behold, plant fossils are in an order suggested by evolution as well.

Of course plant fossils appear initially as things like mosses and algae, and initially we have non-vascular plants. Then eventually as we look through the rock record we begin finding vascular plants, then eventually seeded plants, then eventually flowering plants.

So, collectively, some finds that would disprove evolution include any paleozoic mammal or bird (for which there are thousands of options, including a Cambrian bunny. The initial appearance of fish anywhere in the cenozoic or Mesozoic would also disprove evolution. The initial appearance of amphibians either in the Cambrian or anywhere in the Mesozoic or cenozoic would also disprove evolution. The initial appearance of invertebrates or arthropods anywhere in the Mesozoic or cenozoic would also disprove evolution. The appearance of any of the above, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish or birds, anywhere in the early to mid protozoic would also disprove evolution. Any flowering plants within or prior to the carboniferous would disprove evolution, any seeded plants observed in rocks prior to the ordovician would also disprove evolution. Etc. There are many hypothetical possibilities that could disprove evolution. But none exist.

And again, there's nothing faith based about this. In fact, any of us can go and look for ourselves at any time. All you really need is a geologic map and a pair of sturdy boots. And if you would like help doing this yourself, or if you have any questions on how to do it, feel free to let me know.

And I guess I'll go ahead and we'll describe the one and only response that I've heard from creationists and I'll describe why it comes up short as well.

The one response that I've heard some young earth creationists give aside from bizarre claims about human foot tracks being found inside t-rex foot tracks is regarding the zachelmie trackways of the early Devonian.

Some young earthers say, well, if tetrapods lived before Tiktaalik, which is a fish to tetrapod transition, it must therefore be true that the entire fossil succession is disorganized and completely made-up.

That's basically what the response is. But this response fails for the following reasons:

Earth history and the geologic succession spans 4.5+ billion years. Or 4,500 million years. Or the geologic record, the fossil record spans 3,500 million years, and macro species of animals span roughly 600 million years.

The zachelmie trackways are dated to roughly 390 million years old.

Non-marine palaeoenvironment associated to the earliest tetrapod tracks | Scientific Reports

They are contested and others have suggested that they are fish feeding traces. Given that there is no associated bone material, it is hard to know for sure.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...itical_Review_of_Devonian_Tetrapod_Footprints

While the fish to tetrapod transition is believed to have spanned from dates of roughly 359-385.

A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan | Nature

With Tiktaalik specimen found in the fram formation, dating between 383-359, on the lower end of the frasnian, estimated around 375-385 million years old.

So with all of the above said, if the rock record were a 4,500 page book, with macro sized animals spanning the last 600 pages, what the YEC argument amounts to, is that, in their opinion, because contested tracks of a tetrapod appear on page 395 (give or take 5 pages) and because Tiktaalik (a tetrapodomorph) is observed between pages 375-385, give or take 5 pages, that somehow, all 600 pages of post Cambrian animals or even all 3,500 pages of the fossil record at large, somehow have no logical sequence.

Sure, they could find a t rex (page 70) in the ordovician chapter (page 400), or they could find any species of bird (pages 150-0) anywhere in the paleozoic (pages 550-250) and it would easily disprove evolution. But instead, they make an effort to say that a disputed fossil (that may just be fish traces, with no bone material) of page 390 (give or take 5 pages of potential dating error) ought to be on page 385 (give or take 5 pages), and that because it's not, the entire animal and fossil succession is meaningless.

If such an argument doesn't make you laugh out loud, I don't know what would. As if YECs could not fathom the possibility that perhaps these tetrapods lived side by side. As if evolution hadn't already established that fish had been around since the cambrian and reptiles appeared in the carboniferous, and so it would still be logical to find any tetrapod in the Devonian.

The YEC response to the summation of phylogenetic trees is really like sticking a bear with a twig. They may think they're doing something, but anyone familiar with the vast collection of information that makes these phylogenetic trees up, knows that their efforts are meaningless.

 

[Religiot]

Brother Religiot, this is the first time I've ever been told that I have "faith in another person's faith."

Please understand that, as an academically inclined person, and just as would be done in a seminary or at a university, when I affirm my point of view I support it and offer further clarification of it by citing my sources. When I make academic references, and due to my own academic training, this is how I "speak for myself."

Thus, for the sake of understanding and for expediency, I have offered you one single academic reference (among many that I have), and in this case that reference is made to sister (and she is a fellow Christian by the way), April Maskiewicz Cordero, Ph.D.

Her approach to our common Christian faith in the face of the Theory of Evolution is similar to mine, and since she is a biological scientist, she has the qualification to speak on this topic. And so, I am referring her to you. I don't offer her as a source by which to convince you of anything, but rather to simply explain my position. Does this make sense?

Moreover, when you say you want to hear "my defense" of the faith, in the same way that you need to not only refer to the Bible but also go outside of the Bible to explain your own position, I too not only refer to the Bible but go outside of the Bible to explain my own position on our Christian faith.

If you consider yourself Fundamentalist in the faith, that's fine by me. I'm not here to dissuade you from whichever one of several points of view we might hold on either the issue of 'origins' or the interpretation of the Bible. Just keep in mind that both of us, in different articulations, are "Creationists."

Are you understanding what I'm saying, brother Religiot?

Peace!

Your condescension to me, strikes as proud yet gentle--I'm not offended, but I am concerned.

Citing the scriptures is not equal to citing men, but the words of God, through men, cited as commands, not opinions, nor findings, nor arguments, but commands, specifically; for God's word is law, of both the material and spiritual--that is unequivocal.

Critical to your misunderstanding of my request is your ignorance of the fact that we are all promoters of an authority, e.g., God for Christians, and Satan for everyone else; therefore, you must be the one to tell me what you believe, and why, otherwise, you may find yourself unwittingly promoting something sinister, that perniciously undermines the rudiments of the faith of Christ.

There are only two kinds of people in the world, period.

I'm still interested, if you would, in hearing your reasons for your beliefs.

Sincerely. Amen.

 

[Job 33:6]

Please clarify: what position, exactly? --thanks.

..."Proverbial" ...You continue to refer to the conjectures of men as if they were conclusions in-fact... --Your missing it, I assure you.

...how do you determine the order? --yes, I mean you.

...the rocks, really? So how do you determine the age of the rocks?

So when did you do this?

I suggest you first dare to prove your claims before daring to propose allegations about me.


With respect, that is merely a suggestion: you must present their actual argument, along with their actual evidence, otherwise, you're not being scientific, but merely a promoter of a particular faith. (What you've presented as falsification amounts only to a suggestion at best, and a straw-man at worst.)

okay, so strawman it was... --can't you see, that conclusions derived from strawmen are made of straw themselves?

No, evolution doesn't get into trouble, but the people who believe it do.

--again, simply answer how you determined the order?

...how did you conclude that?

None, of all that you just proposed, would serve to disprove evolution, in the least, but only to create more arguments for it.

So when did you do this yourself? and what were your experiments? and your conclusions? and just as important, have they been falsified or verified? and by who? and by what experitments?

The counter position I've heard, originates from flood advocates. I'm sure you're familiar with them.

I determine the order of the geologic column, by looking at it.

I determine relative ages of rock by looking at their order (what's below or above what). Literally by using my eyeballs to see what is below or above what.

When did I do this? I do it all the time. Maybe not every day but pretty regularly. You don't just look at one rock and you're done. It's part of life. I look at rocks and fossils everywhere I go, all the time. That's the nice thing about planet earth, it exists available for observation everywhere we go. Unless we take a trip to the moon.

What are my experiments? Well, first I get my geologic map. I go outside, and I pick up a rock. I look at the rock and I see what the rock is made of. I look to see if my map confirms my observations. The maps confirm what I see, and I confirm the maps accuracy with what I see.

Then I look for fossils. And when I find them, I at that moment, either confirm or reject the existence of the fossil succession.

That's how it works.

Have I confirmed other people's research and have other people confirmed my own? Yes and yes. And any person with two eye balls and a pair of legs, can do this too. Well, I guess if you have one eyeball and a wheelchair you could still do it, but it might be more challenging.

If I find say, a bird fossil in the Cambrian, then I would have disproven evolution. But I haven't seen such a thing. Though I look at Cambrian rocks pretty regularly. And I do find Cambrian fossils pretty regularly too. Just none of birds.

 

[Religiot]

reality is my evidence, go learn about actual evolution and not the lies and made up stuff creationists like to talk about.

Go and learn how to prove your claims--perhaps in trying to do so you may realize that your perception of reality was merely someone else's.

 

[Religiot]

And what did it look like when He created it?

Good, very good.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your condescension to me, strikes as proud yet gentle--I'm not offended, but I am concerned.

Actually, I wasn't intending to be condescending. So, my apologies if it sounds as if I am. I'm simply attempting to inform you of the nuances of my own viewpoint because you asked about them. I'm simply speaking about how I approach the Bible, the Christian Faith, and their relation the structures we find our planet situated in. I'm sure we have some differences in our respective hermeneutics, but I'm also confident that as Christians, we both believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior, having literally died on the cross for our sins and risen again.

Citing the scriptures is not equal to citing men, but the words of God, through men, cited as commands, not opinions, nor findings, nor arguments, but commands, specifically; for God's word is law, of both the material and spiritual--that is unequivocal.

That's one way of looking at the the Bible, but it's not the only way to understand it's importance within our living faith.

Critical to your misunderstanding of my request is your ignorance of the fact that we are all promoters of an authority, e.g., God for Christians, and Satan for everyone else; therefore, you must be the one to tell me what you believe, and why, otherwise, you may find yourself unwittingly promoting something sinister, that perniciously undermines the rudiments of the faith of Christ.

Well then, by all means, let's find all of the truth in the World that is truly God's Truth.

There are only two kinds of people in the world, period.

Sure. In the ten-years I've been here on C.F., and in the 35 years I've been a Christian, I don't think I've ever averred that there were any people other than those who are aligned with the Lord and those who are not.

I'm still interested, if you would, in hearing your reasons for your beliefs.

Sincerely. Amen.

Ok. To start, I believe the world is far, far older than only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. And I think this due to various geological evidences.

 

[Job 33:6]

The counter position I've heard, originates from flood advocates. I'm sure you're familiar with them.

I determine the order of the geologic column, by looking at it.

I determine relative ages of rock by looking at their order (what's below or above what).

When did I do this? I do it all the time. Maybe not every day but pretty regularly.

What are my experiments? Well, first I get my geologic map. I go outside, and I pick up a rock. I look at the rock and I see what the rock is made of. I look to see if my map confirms my observations. The maps confirm what I see, and I confirm the maps accuracy with what I see.

Then I look for fossils. And when I find them, I at that moment, either confirm or reject the existence of the fossil succession.

That's how it works.

Have I confirmed other people's research and have other people confirmed my own? Yes and yes. And any person with two eye balls and a pair of legs, can do this too. Well, I guess if you have one eyeball and a wheelchair you could still do it, but it might be more challenging.

If I find say, a bird fossil in the Cambrian, then I would have disproven evolution. But I haven't seen such a thing. Though I look at Cambrian rocks pretty regularly.

@Religiot also, to follow up on my quoted post above, if you don't believe my words, I implore you, to see for yourself. And I'd be more than happy to guide you through the process.

 

[Religiot]

Actually, I wasn't intending to be condescending. So, my apolgies if it sounds as if I am.

To condescend is not an offense, but to do it proudly is--but I did not hold it against you.

That's one way of looking at the the Bible, but it's not the only way to understand it's importance within our living faith.

What's another way?

Well then, by all means, let's find all of the truth in the World that is truly God's Truth.

The truth is a person: only by doing what He says can we know what is true or false.

Sure. In the ten-years I've been here on C.F., and in the 35 years I've been a Christian, I don't think I've ever averred that there were any people other than those who are aligned with the Lord and those who are not.

That is great to hear, for many people do not have this knowledge, yet it is a basic knowledge, without which very little can be built.

Ok. To start, I believe the world is far, far older than only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. And I think this due to various geological evidences.

What are some of those evidences?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To condescend is not an offense, but to do it proudly is--but I did not hold it against you.

We must have different definitions of what "pride" is, brother Religiot. My defintion and understanding of "pride" isn't to simply assert one's position to the disapproval of another Christian. If anything, I could claim the same about you here. But I won't. Rather, I just think you have your own perception of these things.

What's another way?

The other way is for neither of us to assume that either of us clearly and distinctly "understands" what the Bible is, or that we can know what it is we think it says with ease.

The truth is a person: only by doing what He says can we know what is true or false.

Truth is a human, English word. Jesus IS who and what He IS, regardless of the cultural language we use to describe Him, or of the interpretatons of the English copies of the Bible that each of us holds in our hands.

Let's not confuse the English word, TRUTH, with Jesus Himself.

That is great to hear, for many people do not have this knowledge, yet it is a basic knowledge, without which very little can be built.

What is basic knowledge?

What are some of those evidences?

Do you mean to ask me about evidences of the earth being older that 10,000 years?

 

[Religiot]

We must have different definitions of what "pride" is, brother Religiot. My defintion and understanding of "pride" isn't to simply assert one's position to the disapproval of another Christian. If anything, I could claim the same about you here. But I won't. Rather, I just think you have you're own way perception of these things.

Well, I don't mean that you were prideful, only that your condescension felt like it was.

The other way is for neither of us to assume that either of us clearly and distinctly "understands" what the Bible is, or what it is says, with ease.

That is a serious problem, for understanding it is required--this, of course, presupposes understanding it rightly, for a private understanding is only a misunderstanding, which, of course, is no understanding, but an obscurity of mind, unable to make distinctions, being without clarity, unable to see, resulting in movement without ease--all those things are contrary to the light, which guides the eyes, of those of us with eyes to see, viz:

"Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side." --Matthew 13:18-19

Satan can only take it to twist it, if you don't understand it, period.

Truth is a human, English word. Jesus IS who and what He IS, regardless of the cultural language we use to describe Him, or of the interpretatons of the English copies of the Bible that each of us holds in our hands.

Let's not confuse the English word, TRUTH, with Jesus Himself.

It would be a complete absurdity to say that the Creator of the universe is the English word 'truth'... ...to suggest that I was thinking that implies a kind of prejudice that I do not think I can overcome by this conversation alone.

What is basic knowledge?

Fundamental knowledge.

Do you mean to ask me about evidences of the earth being older that 10,000 years?

Yes, the evidences you claimed were various--I'd like to see what you consider to be evidence for that.

 

[Thomas White]

Good, very good.

And why is that not evolution?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, I don't mean that you were prideful, only that your condescension felt like it was.

Again. My apologies. I didn't feel like I was being condescending. How would you like for me to speak to you so that you don't feel like I'm being condescending, Religiot?

That is a serious problem, for understanding it is required--this, of course, presupposes understanding it rightly, for a private understanding is only a misunderstanding, which, of course, is no understanding, but an obscurity of mind, unable to make distinctions, being without clarity, unable to see, resulting in movement without ease--all those things are contrary to the light, which guides the eyes, of those of us with eyes to see, viz:

"Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side." --Matthew 13:18-19

You're right. Understanding the Bible is a serious challenge, for many. This is one reason I study Hermeneutics and Exegesis. We wouldn't want to flippantly try to contrive a meaning from Scripture that the writers themselves wouldn't have intended to express.

Satan can only take it to twist it, if you don't understand it, period.

That's true. Satan attempts to do that. Fortunately, you and I both know that Satan doesn't know everything, so he leaves himself in a weak position.

It would be a complete absurdity to say that the Creator of the universe is the English word 'truth'... ...to suggest that I was thinking that implies a kind of prejudice that I do not think I can overcome by this conversation alone.

Yes, it is absurd. But people say "Jesus is the Truth" all the time and can't really explain what that means.

Fundamental knowledge.

What is fundamental knowledge? Do you mean to refer to something like the fact that we know the Moon isn't a flat disc?

Yes, the evidences you claimed were various--I'd like to see what you consider to be evidence for that.

What do you accept as evidence? See, this isn't meant to be a trick question, but I go through a similar conceptual excercise all of the time with the Skeptics here, and they're always trying to ask for evidence but without defining what should count as evidence, what is "sufficient evidence" or how much human interpetation plays into discerning the nature of data that we think of as facts.

But, evidence for Evolution? For that we'd have to probably first know our tools for discerning evidence and what qualifies as evidence and how it does so. If we're not going to accept the Scientific Method(s) to study the nature and age of the Earth, then what else is there?

 

[Religiot]

The counter position I've heard, originates from flood advocates. I'm sure you're familiar with them.

Yes.

I determine the order of the geologic column, by looking at it.

What is the criteria by which you filter what you're looking at?

I determine relative ages of rock by looking at their order (what's below or above what). Literally by using my eyeballs to see what is below or above what.

...You can't be serious: the question is a basic one: how do you know what you're looking at, sir?

When did I do this? I do it all the time. Maybe not every day but pretty regularly. You don't just look at one rock and you're done. It's part of life. I look at rocks and fossils everywhere I go, all the time. That's the nice thing about planet earth, it exists available for observation everywhere we go. Unless we take a trip to the moon.

Then you must have a lot of evidence--that's what I'm interested in.

What are my experiments? Well, first I get my geologic map. I go outside, and I pick up a rock. I look at the rock and I see what the rock is made of. I look to see if my map confirms my observations. The maps confirm what I see, and I confirm the maps accuracy with what I see.

Please describe your geologic map, and if possible, please post a picture of it, thanks.

Then I look for fossils. And when I find them, I at that moment, either confirm or reject the existence of the fossil succession.

Not sure what that means, exactly, but still interested: would you please give an example of this? thanks.

That's how it works.

Well, I'm currently in the process of trying to determine what "that" means.

Have I confirmed other people's research and have other people confirmed my own? Yes and yes. And any person with two eye balls and a pair of legs, can do this too. Well, I guess if you have one eyeball and a wheelchair you could still do it, but it might be more challenging.

Most people have eyes that don't see.

If I find say, a bird fossil in the Cambrian, then I would have disproven evolution. But I haven't seen such a thing. Though I look at Cambrian rocks pretty regularly. And I do find Cambrian fossils pretty regularly too. Just none of birds.

That would not disprove evolution in the least, but would only generate more arguments for it.

 

[Religiot]

@Religiot also, to follow up on my quoted post above, if you don't believe my words, I implore you, to see for yourself. And I'd be more than happy to guide you through the process.

This is not about whether I believe you or not, this is about science, not faith; wherefore I've asked you very specific questions, that you will hopefully soon answer.

 

[Religiot]

And why is that not evolution?

Your response doesn't follow from my reply.

You asked me what God's creation looked like, and I told you what God said about what He thought it looked like, which was good, very good.

Your question, therefore, does not follow from my post.

Please rephrase the question so that it follows from what we're talking about, thanks.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes.

What is the criteria by which you filter what you're looking at?

...You can't be serious: the question is a basic one: how do you know what you're looking at, sir?

Then you must have a lot of evidence--that's what I'm interested in.

Please describe your geologic map, and if possible, please post a picture of it, thanks.

Not sure what that means, exactly, but still interested: would you please give an example of this? thanks.

Well, I'm currently in the process of trying to determine what "that" means.

Most people have eyes that don't see.

That would not disprove evolution in the least, but would only generate more arguments for it.

To understand what you're looking at, you have to identify the type of rock that you're looking at. So you can look at varying grain sizes to determine if you're looking at a sandstone or a siltstone, or you can look at different mineral structures to determine what minerals are in certain rocks to determine what the overall rock is. Different rocks fracture in different ways. So for example, let's say I go outside and I pickup a rock and it's made of sand (just like at a beach) I can conclude that it's sandstone because that is what it is made of. Igneous rocks are also simple. Granites have quarts and feldspar, much like a kitchen counter. Metamorphic rocks are typically folded or have flattened minerals etc.

I use the above qualities to distinguish between rock types, among others.

And this is how I know what I'm looking at. Just like when you look at a dog or a cat, you know the difference just based on how they look. Rocks are the same way.

Geologic maps are publicly available. I actually use a phone app. In which geologic maps have been digitized.

Here are a couple examples:

The different colors represent different formations. If you click on the formation, it gives information and references on formations.

It's easy to used digitized maps because they give you real time gps capabilities that help identify your location. Just like using a regular gps unit, as long as you have reception, the app can tell you where you are.

So, let's say we have the theory of evolution which says that amphibians evolved from fish in the devonian.

And this is what genome sequences suggest, it's what, comparative anatomy, etc.

So as rock people, let's say we want to know if amphibian fossils post-date fish fossils. And if amphibian fossils are found before fish fossils, then the theory of evolution is in trouble.

So let's find some Devonian formations...I'll give the play by play with screenshots.

 

[Thomas White]

Your response doesn't follow from my reply.

You asked me what God's creation looked like, and I told you what God said about what He thought it looked like, which was good, very good.

Your question, therefore, does not follow from my post.

Please rephrase the question so that it follows from what we're talking about, thanks.

I understood what you meant. How do you know "good" is not evolution?

 

[Chi.C]

Why does this impossible process, with impossible odds, seem so rational to this new breed of Christians? It's growing, and it might be blasphemy. Aren't they calling God a liar?

The new rationality is not spiritual but rather fleshly. This is similarly to what happen to the churches in the early part of the 3rd and 4th century. To avoid persecution they embraced being a church of state. They became part of the elite. Evolutionism is required in the Academic-Political Complex.

They are calling the Scriptures totally devoid of scientific truth and by inference all truths. The most extreme of these are called atheist as the believe the universe was created by the multiverse (by something immeasurable but it exists). However, since they like the perks of Christianity, they self-identify as Christian. The ones that say the universe was created by God, but does not take interest what He has created, are either Deists, Platonics (Demiurge), or Evolutionist. Deists are calling God something like the Hindu Brahma (without Shiva and Vishnu). The Platonics are calling God something like a tag team of bad Brahma and Vishnu. The Evolutionists are calling it as Brahma (with or without Shiva) and Vishnu with reincarnation without dharma. I don't they are calling God a liar directly.