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

Religiot · Mar 28, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
Lol we aren't talking about microbial life. All I see above is a lack of response. Knowing the time between deposition of a lower and older layer, and a younger upper layer, is irrelevant to the question of which layer was deposited first and which was deposited second.

Incredible: not only did you not read the article, but you're also regarding the knowledge of the time of deposits as irrelevant.
Your religion is not only unscientific, but illogical, and thus, it is absurd.

KomatiiteBIF said:
So as I said before....

Yes, you continue to maintain your dogma, despite any superseding arguments on my part--madness!

KomatiiteBIF said:
And we know that fossil foot prints came after the layer or ground/earth in which the foot prints were made (because the bottom layer had to already exist for the animal to walk on), and we know that the layer above the foot tracks had to come after the foot tracks were made because the animal needed time to freely walk. Therefore the layers on the bottom are older than layers on the top, including in areas in which fossil foot tracks are found between the two.

The fact that you continue to maintain the pretense that I don't understand what you are saying, is only further proof of how absurd you're willing to be in order to maintain your dogma.

KomatiiteBIF said:
Now, given that we know that rocks deepest in the geologic column were laid down first and that shallow rocks were lade down later in time, and given that rocks altered by earthquakes are readily observable to see if such a think even needs to be considered, we can observe a succession of fossils in these rocks and can determine which fossils came earlier or later in time than other fossils in the succession. Fossils in the deepest layers are oldest, while fossils in the shallowest layers are the youngest. For example, we find dinosaurs in stratigraphically deeper layers than we find groundhogs, therefore dinosaurs predated groundhogs. Example 2, we find trilobites in deeper layers than we find dinosaurs, therefore trilobites predated dinosaurs.

Dating the rocks by the fossils, and dating the fossils by the rocks, is manifestly absurd to anyone not committed to your religion.

KomatiiteBIF said:
Then once we understand the order of fossils (the fossil succession) we can then put the theory of evolution to the test.

LOL! --the fact that you don't understand that the axiom you just established serves only to confirm your religion, but not test it, demonstrates a blindness, so great, that I no longer believe there is anything I could say or prove, that would dissuade your faith.

KomatiiteBIF said:
Someone seems to be having trouble coming to grips with the simple law of superposition.

LOL! As much as I enjoy a good laugh, I'm not in this conversation for entertainment, therefore, I must digress.

MittenMaven · Mar 28, 2021

Religiot said:
Richard Dawkins is a world renowned biologist: what's your point?

You mean the 'tenets' of evolution; and they are indeed tenets, for it is a religion. --Why did biologists change their minds about the appendix? (If you are able to answer that, then you will also know the answer to the questions you've posited.)

I'm not here to spoon feed you scriptures, nor scientific articles: I'm here to demonstrate the fraud in the faith of evolution.

I did, but you do not believe me.

You have no evidence of special creation. Why did God so poorly design the recurrent laryngeal nerve? Why is there clear transitional forms in the evolution of the reptile inner ear to the mammal ear. You obfuscate because you cannot defend. Attack the person because you have zero arguments.

Religiot · Mar 28, 2021

MittenMaven said:
You have no evidence of special creation. Why did God so poorly design the recurrent laryngeal nerve? Why is there clear transitional forms in the evolution of the reptile inner ear to the mammal ear. You obfuscate because you cannot defend. Attack the person because you have zero arguments.

Attack the person? --really?

Not only did you attempt to reveal yourself as an authority, but have attacked me from the start, ad hominem is what you've appealed to and attacked. --I've never attacked you personally, just the absurdity of your claims.

Now, however, you have revealed yourself personally, by laughing at my responses to others, not because they were humorous, but because you disagreed, that is scoffing, thus who you really are inside is no longer a mystery to me: I don't dialog with scoffers, so please, keep your faith to yourself, I'm not interested.

MittenMaven · Mar 28, 2021

You have no evidence to refute my claims. So you attack me personally. You are no longer a mystery to me you parrot your claims without evidence. I am far more of an authoritative voice on evolution than you ever will be.

Why is God such a poor engineer that he designed the recurrent laryngeal nerve so inefficient?

Religiot · Mar 28, 2021

MittenMaven said:
I am far more of an authoritative voice on evolution than you ever will be.

That's my point, exactly.

I don't consider myself an authority on anything, much less when it comes to religious beliefs, like evolution: I am just a layman, in the service of my Master, Yehoshua Messiah, the Creator of the universe, and everything in it.

--You appeal to yourself, but I do not.

Goodbye.

MittenMaven · Mar 28, 2021

Religiot said:
That's my point, exactly.

I don't consider myself an authority on anything, much less when it comes to religious beliefs, like evolution: I am just a layman, in the service of my Master, Yehoshua Messiah, the Creator of the universe, and everything in it.

--You appeal to yourself, but I do not.

Goodbye.

Exactly. I appeal to science and scripture. You have no scientific authority so use use layman’s arguments against science to support your beliefs. I don’t believe the world is flat because of science.

Buh bye.

Religiot · Mar 28, 2021

MittenMaven said:
Exactly. I appeal to science and scripture. You have no scientific authority so use use layman’s arguments against science to support your beliefs. I don’t believe the world is flat because of science.

Buh bye.

?

Jesusfann777888 · Mar 28, 2021

Trev T said:
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?

Because you seem to be struggling, I'll help you out a little bit.

1.) if you consider that if the universe had alway's existed, it never began at a point in time. This contradict's everything relates to science. The universe, in context, also could never effectively cause anything as it is what is reffered to as a static universe, perpetual and unchanging.

2.) There are over 300 species of primate, and human being's which are observable. There are no transitional species observable despite both species being observable. evolutions a hoax.

look up the actual declensive Etymology of the word science in The IPA, it's very telling as science is witchraft. It share's origin to a certain belief system that is traced way way back in time, it's also false.

To Answer your question, it has to do with a lot of thing's.some reasons more simple than others.sone people fealt like they couldn't do what The Bible Said and wanted a certain expierience. Some people genuinely care more about being alive then about God,some people want to get people back for something, some pretend Christian got them angry, some Real Christian got them angry for an illegitimate or Legitimate reason. some people just like the leverage it gives them in conversation. everything scientific was plagiarized. The Answers difficult.

coffee4u · Mar 28, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
And in every period of geologic time, and in every period of strata in the earth, we have foot tracks between layers. Meaning that time passed between deposition of layers of strata of every period of earth history , enough time for life to walk to create foot prints.

We can test how foot prints are made as well. Hi walk outside in some mud and examine how the passage of time is necessary for foot tracks to be made.

So, what this means is that older layers were deposited, animals walked on those older layers, younger layers were deposited, animals then walked on those younger layers, and further younger layers were deposited still, with more animals walking on top of those layers. All in a temporal sequence over time.

The passage of time includes wind, rain and lots more animals, humans etc going over the area. The passage of time does not preserve the prints it obliterates them. The same can be said of dead animals, they don't sit nicely on the surface waiting around, they get eaten, broken and scattered.

What it needs to preserve those prints is quick burial and hardening before much time has passed. The best would be for the person or animal to walk in mud near a body of water and for them to be covered quickly by sediment. Then the sediment dried and hardened before something like more water or wind could erase them.

coffee4u · Mar 28, 2021

genez said:
Are you assuming that if something is truth there will not be resistance?

Keep in mind. Young earth creationists try to tell us that the GAP theory was invented to combat the theory of evolution. For it does combat evolution effectively. What the young earthers are not honest about though... Is that the GAP was seen and understood many centuries before the theory of evolution was invented. So, it could not be the reason for this teaching to come about... The online book shows how early it was discovered and understood. If the young earth creationists were more honest in evaluating the facts they would not be allowed to make the claim they make going unquestioned. Its unquestioned because of trusting believers who are not willing to find out for themselves...

I appreciate that.

You seem to have missed the memo. I am a young earth creationist and no I am not lying about anything -thank you very much.

I am going to go read this article now.

I have read it over and made some notes. I will be making a long post on this tomorrow.

GenemZ · Mar 29, 2021

coffee4u said:
You seem to have missed the memo. I am a young earth creationist and no I am not lying about anything -thank you very much.

I never said that you personally are lying.

GenemZ · Mar 29, 2021

Jesusfann777888 said:
Because you seem to be struggling, I'll help you out a little bit.

1.) if you consider that if the universe had alway's existed, it never began at a point in time. This contradict's everything relates to science. The universe, in context, also could never effectively cause anything as it is what is reffered to as a static universe, perpetual and unchanging.

2.) There are over 300 species of primate, and human being's which are observable. There are no transitional species observable despite both species being observable. evolutions a hoax.

Its also a hoax to say all prehistoric animals were contemporaries of Noah's generation. This is where you allow for the evolutionist to slip away safely and with confidence. Your camp can not admit there were prehistoric creations. Therefore, you leave the playground wide open for the evolutionist to play with their theory without you putting a dent in their dogma. You can not touch them for what they do know as garnered from scientific data. You can try reasoning about design and designer all you want. You lose credibility when young earthers claim the prehistoric worlds are not really that old. They don't feel obliged to take the young earther seriously for that reason.

Older prehistoric created worlds were on earth before ours came into being as seen unfolding in Genesis One. . If more believers could see what the Scriptures in the original languages speak of it would put a iron fence around the evolutionist's playground and make him no longer feel the confidence he is now afforded by our ignorance of accurate Scripture translation and pride in what we accept to believe.

Yes. We know God is real and can do anything He pleases. Therefore it makes us capable of accepting what seems impossible to others. That also makes us vulnerable to accept something which is impossible. That is the fatal flaw.

Job 33:6 · Mar 29, 2021

coffee4u said:
The passage of time includes wind, rain and lots more animals, humans etc going over the area. The passage of time does not preserve the prints it obliterates them. The same can be said of dead animals, they don't sit nicely on the surface waiting around, they get eaten, broken and scattered.

What it needs to preserve those prints is quick burial and hardening before much time has passed. The best would be for the person or animal to walk in mud near a body of water and for them to be covered quickly by sediment. Then the sediment dried and hardened before something like more water or wind could erase them.

To stay on topic ^. The question is, in instances where there are foot tracks in rock, can you accept that rock below the footprint existed before rock above the footprint?

Job 33:6 · Mar 29, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
To stay on topic ^. The question is, in instances where there are foot tracks in rock, can you accept that rock below the footprint existed before rock above the footprint?

Can young earth Creationists accept the law of superposition?

If we take a look at the above geologic map, can Young Earth Creationist accept that lower layers of the map are older than shallower layers? Or that leave light blue lighter is older than the orange layer for example?

@coffee4u

Chi.C · Mar 29, 2021

Religiot said:
?

You certainly have a lot of patience. Talking with people who are zealots in ignorance was never my strong point.
Keep calm and carry on!

GenemZ · Mar 29, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
Alright, so let's work on superposition.

In the world, it must logically be true that layers at a deeper depth must be older than layers at a shallower depth, else the shallower layers would be floating in space.

Just as a chair must be present before I am present to sit on it. Else I could not sit on a chair if it did not pre exist my presence.

And we can do any experiment to test this. Grab a chair. If the chair is present before you, you can sit in that chair. If the chair is not present when you attempt to sit, you will end up falling to the ground.

And in every period of geologic time, and in every period of strata in the earth, we have foot tracks between layers. Meaning that time passed between deposition of layers of strata of every period of earth history , enough time for life to walk to create foot prints.

We can test how foot prints are made as well. Hi walk outside in some mud and examine how the passage of time is necessary for foot tracks to be made.

So, what this means is that older layers were deposited, animals walked on those older layers, younger layers were deposited, animals then walked on those younger layers, and further younger layers were deposited still, with more animals walking on top of those layers. All in a temporal sequence over time.

So by looking at what layers are older and what layers are younger (which ones are on top or bottom of others), we can then observe the fossil succession which can then be used to confirm evolution by comparison of the succession with dna based phylogenetic trees as per the video:

And there really is no logical or scientific alternative. Unless we can somehow explain how a person could sit in a chair before a chair is present for them to sit on.

May I take a stab at this?

Could the following be the summation of why we find evolutionary theory?

Evolution is a theory that was devised by minds taking a scientific approach, as a means to explain why we find different creatures that have become extinct, that have apparently been replaced by creatures of a similar, yet quite different form.

Does that sound about right to you?

Its an explanation as to why we find altered lifeforms replacing extinct ones. Correct?

Job 33:6 · Mar 29, 2021

genez said:
May I take a stab at this?

Could the following be the summation of why we find evolutionary theory?

Evolution is a theory that was devised by minds taking a scientific approach, as a means to explain why we find different creatures that have become extinct, that have apparently been replaced by creatures of a similar, yet quite different form.

Does that sound about right to you?

Its an explanation as to why we find altered lifeforms replacing extinct ones. Correct?

I think that when Darwin first proposed the theory, he wasn't really aware of the fossil succession or the full extent of extinct species. So for him, I don't think he was making an effort to explain a succession of fossils, because he never knew of them (though he predicted that they would exist and one day may be discovered).

I view evolution more as a find of biology that just so happened to unite biology with paleontology (and other fields). Modern paleontology could very well be a product of the theory, moreso than the theory would be a product of paleontology and the study of extinct species.

That's just my opinion. Although I'm sure some people in more modern times, some people might look at fossils and think, how can we explain this succession of fossils but as a product of evolution? After the biological theory already exists, then people might learn about it "in reverse" starting out with identifying extinct species then later learning that there is a biological explanation for the paleontological finds.

GenemZ · Mar 29, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
I think that when Darwin first proposed the theory, he wasn't really aware of the fossil succession or the full extent of extinct species. So for him, I don't think he was making an effort to explain a succession of fossils, because he never knew of them (though he predicted that they would exist and one day may be discovered).

I view evolution more as a find of biology that just so happened to unite biology with paleontology (and other fields). Modern paleontology could very well be a product of the theory, moreso than the theory would be a product of paleontology and the study of extinct species.

That's just my opinion. Although I'm sure some people in more modern times, some people might look at fossils and think, how can we explain this succession of fossils but as a product of evolution? After the biological theory already exists, then people might learn about it "in reverse" starting out with identifying extinct species then later learning that there is a biological explanation for the paleontological finds.

I am not talking about Darwin. I am talking about those who devised the theory which was produced to explain the fossil evidence.

What I believe might have happened with Darwin was witnessing to an inborn latent ability that was already manifested in the DNA of those birds. Just like having chameleons that were constantly on a green background, being one day transferred to a brown background. That inborn ability was always latent. God has designed this ability into certain creatures to reveal that He knew what change was coming before it happened. Its a testimony to His omniscience.

For the record: I am not a young earth creationist.

grace and peace.......

Job 33:6 · Mar 29, 2021

genez said:
I am not talking about Darwin. I am talking about those who devised the theory which was produced to explain the fossil evidence.

What I believe might have happened with Darwin was witnessing to an inborn latent ability that was already manifested in the DNA of those birds. Just like having chameleons that were constantly on a green background, being one day transferred to a brown background. That inborn ability was always latent. God has designed this ability into certain creatures to reveal that He knew what change was coming before it happened. Its a testimony to His omniscience.

For the record: I am not a young earth creationist.

grace and peace.......

Yea. Well Darwin was the one who first proposed the theory of evolution. Sure, some philosophers before him, maybe even greek philosophers may have proposed similar ideas. But he first proposed it as a form of science.

My thought is that the theory of evolution was proposed before people knew that there really was a history of extinction and a succession of fosaila. Sure maybe people found a bone here or there, but in some cases people attributed fossils to modern-day animals or they would attribute fossils to pre-flood dragons and things. I'm not really aware of people attributing early fossils to the idea of evolution until after Darwin proposed the theory as a product of biology.

I think that it was after a biological process had been proposed that people then started looking at fossils as a product of that.

So rather than people devising the theory based on a fossil record, I think the fossil record was identified as a product of the theory being devised.

Hope that makes sense!

But if you do know of historical philosophers or historical scientists who believed in evolution as a product of seeing fossils, let me know! I'd be interested to see that.

If you know of any writings of any of the people who devised the theory that might support that idea, I'd be happy to see that.

GenemZ · Mar 29, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
My thought is that the theory of evolution was proposed before people knew that there really was a history of extinction and a succession of fosaila. Sure maybe people found a bone here or there, but in some cases people attributed fossils to modern-day animals or they would attribute fossils to pre-flood dragons and things. I'm not really aware of people attributing early fossils to the idea of evolution until after Darwin proposed the theory as a product of biology.

That's too vague. How can that be?

It sounds like a theory in search of evidence for the theory's existence. :scratch:

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

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads