• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Another Flood Question

Herman Hedning

Hiking is fun
Mar 2, 2004
503,928
1,577
N 57° 44', E 12° 00'
Visit site
✟789,960.00
Faith
Humanist
Perhaps you had best look again... I will include one with caption so you can’t misconstrue it again.

It is the same exact scale for global temperatures that is used today.
So to be charitable, I’ll refrain from stating who is confused...

Does this tie in with your confusion they were not global temperatures?
264693_41fc2ec0b7f244109c67bbe01f9cd3f3.jpeg


Let me draw your attention to the text at the left side of the graph. Note that it says "variation from the 1961-1990 average".

No, global temperatures. But here, I’ll include one with heading to clear that up too...
Again, the graphs show GLOBAL TEMPERATURES, NOT VARIATIONS IN TEMPERATURES.

But since we are both being charitable, we will mark it up to simple confusion on your part.
264694_fda51a74694edd3eae02dba5cb452d72.jpeg


As has been repeatedly pointed out, these are temperature differences relative to today, not absolute temperatures. If nothing else is spelled out, the year 1950 is used as a baseline in such comparisions.

The reason why 1950 is used is shown here Before Present - Wikipedia
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
To be honest there really is no point whatsoever in having a discussion with that guy. At least when you talk to AV he doesn't pretend to have any formal education in the relevant sciences. But with "justatruthseeker" it feels like he is actually convinced that he knows more about every scientific field of study than actual scientists. Couple that with the fact that he never supports his claims with any peer-reviewed studies and you have the apex creationist specimen.

Oh I quite agree, I am well aware that he won’t even consider anything that he perceives as contrary to his views.

The only reason I bother is if nonsense like that goes unaddressed readers who don’t really have much experience or knowledge in these debates might think he has a valid point (however unlikely that might seem!)

Apparently you both lack comprehension skills. Let me repeat the relevant portion of your own source, that apparently you failed to comprehend. Pay close attention to the bolder words. Especially the words “but don’t fit the technical definition of fossils.”

As a result, lemur paleontology is besprinkled with the term “subfossil,” indicating bones that are really old and belong to extinct animals, but don’t fit the technical definition of fossils.

So I still await evidence of fossilization occurring post flood, all you have given me is really old bones....... that don’t fit the definition of fossils....

Everyone here sees your pathetic attempts to mislead for exactly what they are.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
View attachment 213422

Let me draw your attention to the text at the left side of the graph. Note that it says "variation from the 1961-1990 average".


View attachment 213423

As has been repeatedly pointed out, these are temperature differences relative to today, not absolute temperatures. If nothing else is spelled out, the year 1950 is used as a baseline in such comparisions.

The reason why 1950 is used is shown here Before Present - Wikipedia

And so if you wish to dismiss claims of global warming using dating after 1950, I would have no argument. But the little ice age occurred well before 1950, as did the -10C of 25,000 years ago.

Before Present (BP) years is a time scale used mainly in geology and other scientific disciplines to specify when events occurred in the past. Because the "present" time changes, standard practice is to use 1 January 1950 as the commencement date of the age scale, reflecting the fact that radiocarbon dating became practical in the 1950s. The abbreviation "BP", with the same meaning, has also been interpreted[1] as "Before Physics"; that is, before nuclear weapons testing artificially altered the proportion of the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, making dating after that time likely to be unreliable.

So if you want to say the dating from the 1950’s onward by use of radiocarbon dating is unreliable, I see no problem. Since the dating is not based on radiocarbon dating, but ice core samples. Strawmen tactics are not good to use, because strawmen are built to be tore down.

So if you like we will discount all measurements after 1950, even if radiocarbon dating is not being used.

The dates were the average of the ice cores drilled from 1961 to 1990, which age was not based upon radiocarbon dating, but geological layering of ice sheets. Ice sheets according to science layer down starting 2.6 million years ago.

But fine, we will discard the far right end and remove about .006% of the top graph and about to the first bar on the right on the second.

No wait, we can’t remove any of the top graph, since 0 or present would indicate 1950, and all dates are before it, so would not be affected even had radiocarbon dating been used.

And strawmen doubly since the second graph is clearly presented in years AD. You do know what that is don’t you? Had nothing to do with 1950....

anno Domini - Wikipedia

So what’s your take on global warming then, since they claim to use global temperatures too?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MyGivenNameIsKeith

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2017
687
380
xcxb xcvb n bv b
✟41,071.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Aman777 said:
Not so. I support what I write with God's Holy Word. Genesis one is the entire History of God's 6 Days of Creation, including events which are future to our time. Genesis 1:28-31 is prophecy of events which take place AFTER Jesus returns, UNLESS you can tell us WHEN Humans had dominion or rule over viruses and Angels AND when in the past EVERY living creature was a vegetarian as Gen 1:30 states.



Of course. Genesis 1:28 states that Adam/mankind in Hebrew, will be given dominion or rule over EVERY living creature. Gen 1:28 This has NOT happened in History since mankind has NEVER had rule over mosquitoes , viruses or Angels. 1Co 6:3 This happens AFTER Jesus returns to this Earth.

ALL living creatures will also become vegetarians and Bears and Lions will eat straw like the Ox. Isa 11:7 At no time in the past have Bears and Lions been vegetarians. If you don't believe me, then tell us WHEN in the past this event happened? You cannot since the end of the present 6th Day/Age is future. Genesis 1:28-31 at the end of the 6th Day is Prophesy. Amen?
Prior to the fall, all animals ate grass apparently? For one to say that Genesis 1:28 NEVER happened is to call God a liar and to say you know it all. God told us this happened. He even sanctified the seventh day. You are forgetting the Sabbath. You say no, its a prophecy and hasn't happened. Whereas, Man was given dominion over the earth. Not heaven and earth. After the fall, since the introduction of sin, all of creation has been under it. Have you not read where sins were committed against the beasts and birds? Sin dramatically changed the landscape of everything, including food. In the garden, everything was all hunky dory. Sin changed that. Focus on God. Not the things of the world. Jesus will come back, I have no doubt. It helps to discern things spiritually as well. For if you look at the animals as people's attitudes, personalities, and works, it is easy to see how some people are lions, others are wolves (like for instance wolf of wall street?, wolf in sheep's clothing?), some are lambs, others sheep, etc. Hence why Jesus told Peter : Feed my lambs, Feed my sheep, Feed my sheep. In your opinion I take it, he must have been talking about literal lambs, sheep and not Christians. When Jesus is even referred to as the Lion of Judah. As I said before, lean not on your own understanding. Things that are going to happen, did happen in the past, and are going to happen again. They didn't NOT happen. I encourage you to broaden the scope a bit. Don't imagine that the prophecy signifies that day 6 never happened. Instead that it did happen and will happen again. It has happened twice already. It will happen again when he returns. He made people on day 6 (1), the other two times are spiritual , Israel (2), the church (3). Remember body, mind, soul. Three times. We are made in his image. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Prior to the fall, all animals ate grass apparently? For one to say that Genesis 1:28 NEVER happened is to call God a liar and to say you know it all. God told us this happened. He even sanctified the seventh day. You are forgetting the Sabbath. You say no, its a prophecy and hasn't happened. Whereas, Man was given dominion over the earth. Not heaven and earth. After the fall, since the introduction of sin, all of creation has been under it. Have you not read where sins were committed against the beasts and birds? Sin dramatically changed the landscape of everything, including food. In the garden, everything was all hunky dory. Sin changed that. Focus on God. Not the things of the world. Jesus will come back, I have no doubt. It helps to discern things spiritually as well. For if you look at the animals as people's attitudes, personalities, and works, it is easy to see how some people are lions, others are wolves (like for instance wolf of wall street?, wolf in sheep's clothing?), some are lambs, others sheep, etc. Hence why Jesus told Peter : Feed my lambs, Feed my sheep, Feed my sheep. In your opinion I take it, he must have been talking about literal lambs, sheep and not Christians. When Jesus is even referred to as the Lion of Judah. As I said before, lean not on your own understanding. Things that are going to happen, did happen in the past, and are going to happen again. They didn't NOT happen. I encourage you to broaden the scope a bit. Don't imagine that the prophecy signifies that day 6 never happened. Instead that it did happen and will happen again. It has happened twice already. It will happen again when he returns. He made people on day 6 (1), the other two times are spiritual , Israel (2), the church (3). Remember body, mind, soul. Three times. We are made in his image. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

First I in no way imply I agree with Aman....

So what makes you think all animals ate grass prior to the fall? No where is it stated that animals suffered the penalty for Adams sin.

So, we reject evolution based upon the claim that no finely graduated chain can be found, then refuse to apply that to our own reasoning and the fact not a single lion or meat eating animal can be found with herbivore teeth.

And I can’t seem to get anyone to answer the question. How did Adam know what death was - the punishment for sin - had he not observed animals, mating, living out their lives and dying, including hunting and killing? Neither you nor I would know what death was had we never seen it, would not even have a word for it. Do you think God would punish Adam without him being able to fully understand the consequences? So just how long do you think Adam spent in the garden naming ALL the animals? A day? Part of a day since some of it was creation?

I would like to see anyone name all the animals in a day, even with all the textbooks listing every one of them in front of themselves.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Aman777
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Apparently you both lack comprehension skills. Let me repeat the relevant portion of your own source, that apparently you failed to comprehend. Pay close attention to the bolder words. Especially the words “but don’t fit the technical definition of fossils.”

As a result, lemur paleontology is besprinkled with the term “subfossil,” indicating bones that are really old and belong to extinct animals, but don’t fit the technical definition of fossils.

So I still await evidence of fossilization occurring post flood, all you have given me is really old bones....... that don’t fit the definition of fossils....

Everyone here sees your pathetic attempts to mislead for exactly what they are.

Why don’t they fit the technical definition of fossils professor?

Because they are younger than 10000 years?

It’s right there in my post, as are other examples of partially fossilised bones.

I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve with this behaviour, you asked for one example of bones undergoing fossilisation and I provided several.

Didn’t my post describe the discovery of “partially fossilised” dodo bones which were several thousand years old?

What you’re asking for doesn’t even technically fall under the definition of fossils which is why the text you bolded says what it does.

Now please address the other examples or just be a man and admit you were mistaken.
 
Upvote 0

ruthiesea

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2007
715
504
✟82,369.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Prior to the fall, all animals ate grass apparently? For one to say that Genesis 1:28 NEVER happened is to call God a liar and to say you know it all. God told us this happened.
No, it's saying that G-d did not intend for Genesis to be a history book. Perhaps you should get a different point of view. Perhaps Maimonides or Lord Jonathan Sacks.

By the way, didn't Jesus lie? I think that you call them parables.
 
Upvote 0

ruthiesea

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2007
715
504
✟82,369.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
For one to say that Genesis 1:28 NEVER happened is to call God a liar and to say you know it all.
No, it's saying that G-d never intended Genesis, and the following four books, to be a history book. Perhaps you should consider opening your mind a little by reading Maimonides and Lord Jonathon Sacks. Use your mind to think, as G-d intended.

Didn't Jesus lie? You call them parables.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Why don’t they fit the technical definition of fossils professor?

Because they are younger than 10000 years?
No, because they are not fossilized, they are merely old bones, not fossils, and hence they don’t meet the deffinition since they aren’t fossils.


It’s right there in my post, as are other examples of partially fossilised bones.
Except they are just bones, and not fossilized, hence don’t meet the definition of fossils.

I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve with this behaviour, you asked for one example of bones undergoing fossilisation and I provided several.
No, you provided old bones that aren’t fossilizing, hence they don’t meet the definition of fossils.

Didn’t my post describe the discovery of “partially fossilised” dodo bones which were several thousand years old?

What you’re asking for doesn’t even technically fall under the definition of fossils which is why the text you bolded says what it does.

Now please address the other examples or just be a man and admit you were mistaken.
Yet we’re they actually partially fossilized they would meet the definition of fossils. That they fail to do so, just shows they found old bones... which is exactly what they tell you they found, then tell you that those old bones are not really fossils. So their telling you partially fossilized is simply because they want them to be fossils, even when they understand they are not.

Just as everyone understands that really old bones, that don’t meet the deffinition of fossils, are not fossils....

Next you’ll be telling me common ancestors exist even when no one can provide a single solitary one. Wait, you already do that....
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Prior to the fall, all animals ate grass apparently? For one to say that Genesis 1:28 NEVER happened is to call God a liar and to say you know it all. God told us this happened.

Are you trying to tell us that Bears and Lions ate grass before they ate meat? Is God STILL creating Adam/mankind in His Image which is Spiritually in Christ today? Of course He is because we live today at Gen 1:27 at the end of the present 6th Day/Age. God rests/ceases creating from ALL of His works at the end of the present 6th Day. Gen 2:2-3

*** He even sanctified the seventh day. You are forgetting the Sabbath. You say no, its a prophecy and hasn't happened.

God set apart the 7th Day by telling us to "keep it Holy". The only thing "holy" about the 7th Day on Earth is that some 20k babies die on each 7th Day. The 7th Day is also Eternity. Can you tell us WHEN it begins or ends? Of course not since Eternity has NO evening and NO morning. God's rest is FUTURE.
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

Whereas, Man was given dominion over the earth. Not heaven and earth. After the fall, since the introduction of sin, all of creation has been under it. Have you not read where sins were committed against the beasts and birds? Sin dramatically changed the landscape of everything, including food. In the garden, everything was all hunky dory. Sin changed that. Focus on God. Not the things of the world. Jesus will come back, I have no doubt. It helps to discern things spiritually as well. For if you look at the animals as people's attitudes, personalities, and works, it is easy to see how some people are lions, others are wolves (like for instance wolf of wall street?, wolf in sheep's clothing?), some are lambs, others sheep, etc. Hence why Jesus told Peter : Feed my lambs, Feed my sheep, Feed my sheep.<<<

Mankind has NEVER been given dominion or rule over viruses or Angels since it's future to 2017. Humanity's dominion is over "EVERY" living thing:

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

*** In your opinion I take it, he must have been talking about literal lambs, sheep and not Christians. When Jesus is even referred to as the Lion of Judah. As I said before, lean not on your own understanding. Things that are going to happen, did happen in the past, and are going to happen again. They didn't NOT happen. I encourage you to broaden the scope a bit. Don't imagine that the prophecy signifies that day 6 never happened. Instead that it did happen and will happen again. It has happened twice already. It will happen again when he returns. He made people on day 6 (1), the other two times are spiritual , Israel (2), the church (3). Remember body, mind, soul. Three times. We are made in his image. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

Amen. Being born again Spiritually is what happens on the present Day of Salvation....unless you can refute the LORD:

2Co 6:2 (For He saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

Amen?
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
No, it's saying that G-d did not intend for Genesis to be a history book.

False, since Genesis chapter 1 is the entire History of the 6 Creative Days of the 7 Day Creation of the perfect Heaven. God HID His Truth in the last days discoveries of Science. Genesis 1 AGREES with every discovery of mankind. Amen?
 
Upvote 0

MyGivenNameIsKeith

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2017
687
380
xcxb xcvb n bv b
✟41,071.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Are you trying to tell us that Bears and Lions ate grass before they ate meat? Is God STILL creating Adam/mankind in His Image which is Spiritually in Christ today? Of course He is because we live today at Gen 1:27 at the end of the present 6th Day/Age. God rests/ceases creating from ALL of His works at the end of the present 6th Day. Gen 2:2-3

*** He even sanctified the seventh day. You are forgetting the Sabbath. You say no, its a prophecy and hasn't happened.

God set apart the 7th Day by telling us to "keep it Holy". The only thing "holy" about the 7th Day on Earth is that some 20k babies die on each 7th Day. The 7th Day is also Eternity. Can you tell us WHEN it begins or ends? Of course not since Eternity has NO evening and NO morning. God's rest is FUTURE.
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

Whereas, Man was given dominion over the earth. Not heaven and earth. After the fall, since the introduction of sin, all of creation has been under it. Have you not read where sins were committed against the beasts and birds? Sin dramatically changed the landscape of everything, including food. In the garden, everything was all hunky dory. Sin changed that. Focus on God. Not the things of the world. Jesus will come back, I have no doubt. It helps to discern things spiritually as well. For if you look at the animals as people's attitudes, personalities, and works, it is easy to see how some people are lions, others are wolves (like for instance wolf of wall street?, wolf in sheep's clothing?), some are lambs, others sheep, etc. Hence why Jesus told Peter : Feed my lambs, Feed my sheep, Feed my sheep.<<<

Mankind has NEVER been given dominion or rule over viruses or Angels since it's future to 2017. Humanity's dominion is over "EVERY" living thing:

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

*** In your opinion I take it, he must have been talking about literal lambs, sheep and not Christians. When Jesus is even referred to as the Lion of Judah. As I said before, lean not on your own understanding. Things that are going to happen, did happen in the past, and are going to happen again. They didn't NOT happen. I encourage you to broaden the scope a bit. Don't imagine that the prophecy signifies that day 6 never happened. Instead that it did happen and will happen again. It has happened twice already. It will happen again when he returns. He made people on day 6 (1), the other two times are spiritual , Israel (2), the church (3). Remember body, mind, soul. Three times. We are made in his image. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

Amen. Being born again Spiritually is what happens on the present Day of Salvation....unless you can refute the LORD:

2Co 6:2 (For He saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

Amen?
Do you even read what I post? Or do you just copy and paste it, then regurgitate your own opinion just like you did last time? So again, I see your view. You are saying that Genesis hasn't been completed yet. Which is your own private interpretation. I have provided scriptures that point to Genesis having been completed. I also have stated, that in a spiritual manner, concerning "prophecy", Genesis in way will happen again. And what is with the viruses? Why are you so hung up on nonsense? Did God not send plagues over Egypt where Israel was not affected? Didn't Jesus tell us not to rejoice because the powers that be were subject unto us? You've missed the mark. And this was a flood thread. So, deuces.
 
Upvote 0

MyGivenNameIsKeith

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2017
687
380
xcxb xcvb n bv b
✟41,071.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, it's saying that G-d did not intend for Genesis to be a history book. Perhaps you should get a different point of view. Perhaps Maimonides or Lord Jonathan Sacks.

By the way, didn't Jesus lie? I think that you call them parables.
No, it's saying that G-d did not intend for Genesis to be a history book. Perhaps you should get a different point of view. Perhaps Maimonides or Lord Jonathan Sacks.

By the way, didn't Jesus lie? I think that you call them parables.
He told the truth. Parables are A simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson
May I refer you to the Old Testament as well as the New, since you refute Christ.
From Ezekiel "Son of man, propound a riddle and speak a parable to the house of Israel,
From Hosea "I have also spoken to the prophets, And I gave numerous visions, And through the prophets I gave parables."
In Matthew Jesus explained why he spoke in parables.
This is why I speak to them in parables: 'Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.'

Or if I may refer to Judges 9:7-15, concerning a parable and your concept of "lying"
7Now when they told Jotham, he went and stood on the top of Mount Gerizim, and lifted his voice and called out. Thus he said to them, “Listen to me, O men of Shechem, that God may listen to you. 8“Once the trees went forth to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, ‘Reign over us!’ 9“But the olive tree said to them, ‘Shall I leave my fatness with which God and men are honored, and go to wave over the trees?’ 10“Then the trees said to the fig tree, ‘You come, reign over us!’ 11“But the fig tree said to them, ‘Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit, and go to wave over the trees?’ 12“Then the trees said to the vine, ‘You come, reign over us!’ 13“But the vine said to them, ‘Shall I leave my new wine, which cheers God and men, and go to wave over the trees?’ 14“Finally all the trees said to the bramble, ‘You come, reign over us!’ 15“The bramble said to the trees, ‘If in truth you are anointing me as king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, may fire come out from the bramble and consume the cedars of Lebanon.’

Now how exactly are talking trees fitting into this concept of truth-telling that you boast?
With all my heart, I ask you to take this proverb.
Proverbs 2:2 Make your ear attentive to wisdom, Incline your heart to understanding;
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟262,040.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
No, global temperatures. But here, I’ll include one with heading to clear that up too...

View attachment 213323
Again, the graphs show GLOBAL TEMPERATURES, NOT VARIATIONS IN TEMPERATURES.
Are you sure you want to be so adamant? Are you happy to claim that the global temperature in 2000 was 0.4 degrees? And at no point in the last 2000 years has the temperature been as high as 0.6 degrees?
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟262,040.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Yet we’re they actually partially fossilized they would meet the definition of fossils.
No, they really wouldn't. The definition of a fossil includes the requirement that they be >10,000 years old.

So their telling you partially fossilized is simply because they want them to be fossils, even when they understand they are not.
Because they are not >10,000 years old

Just as everyone understands that really old bones, that don’t meet the deffinition of fossils, are not fossils....
Remind us - what is the "deffinition" of a fossil? Specifically, what is the age requirement?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No, because they are not fossilized, they are merely old bones, not fossils, and hence they don’t meet the deffinition since they aren’t fossils.

They don't meet the definition of "fossil" because they are younger than 10,000 years, besides you asked for bones "undergoing fossilisation". Stop moving the goalposts and ignoring scientific definitions.

And why are you ignoring all the other examples of subfossils I posted?

Except they are just bones, and not fossilized, hence don’t meet the definition of fossils.

Much of the ‘fossil’ record for lemurs is recent by fossil standards, and so most specimens haven’t become fully fossilized.

You said "show me animal fossils beginning fossilization" did you not?

Well if I am wrong, show me animal fossils beginning fossilization.

Yep, definately "show me animal fossils beginning fossilization".

No, you provided old bones that aren’t fossilizing, hence they don’t meet the definition of fossils.

Right, bones preserved in a swamp for thousands of years that aren't fossilizing. Can you provide a citation for this or is it just guesswork?

Yet we’re they actually partially fossilized they would meet the definition of fossils. That they fail to do so, just shows they found old bones... which is exactly what they tell you they found, then tell you that those old bones are not really fossils. So their telling you partially fossilized is simply because they want them to be fossils, even when they understand they are not.

Who is "telling me" that they are partially fossilized? The people who have studied them? Do you even know what they mean by partially fossilized? Are you now admitting that the sources say "partially fossilized" and trying to find more excuses to handwave them away?

Do you really not understand anything that is being discussed? I think you need to improve your understanding of what we're attempting to discuss.

Do you remember why we are "discussing" this anyway? You ridiculous claims that fossilization can only occur after a catastrophic flood because otherwise decay would set in and they wouldn't be preserved.

And as soon as exposed to conditions that cause fossilization, wet sediment, will imediately start to decay, not fossilize.

Then you won’t mind showing me fossils beginning to form in any lakes would you?

Whether you accept the numerous examples of subfossils I posted as bones, subfossils or fossils they still demonstrate that your claim is false.

You can respond to this post if you like, but I've lost interest in playing pigeon chess with you, so I don't really care.

You've shown your true colours. :oldthumbsup:
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

ruthiesea

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2007
715
504
✟82,369.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
False, since Genesis chapter 1 is the entire History of the 6 Creative Days of the 7 Day Creation of the perfect Heaven. God HID His Truth in the last days discoveries of Science. Genesis 1 AGREES with every discovery of mankind. Amen?
Genesis is factually unscientific. Of course, it was not G-d's attempt to teach science, but to teach morality and ethics. Torah is not the end if inquiry, but the beginning. G-d did not give us all of the answer, but challenged us to make discoveries about His universe. Hence, He gave us minds and, for most of us, curiosity.

I'm afraid that my religion totally disagrees with you. Your interpretation ignores the lessons that are there to be learned by reducing Genesis to a mere history book.

But to each his own.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Do you even read what I post? Or do you just copy and paste it, then regurgitate your own opinion just like you did last time? So again, I see your view. You are saying that Genesis hasn't been completed yet. Which is your own private interpretation. I have provided scriptures that point to Genesis having been completed. I also have stated, that in a spiritual manner, concerning "prophecy", Genesis in way will happen again. And what is with the viruses? Why are you so hung up on nonsense? Did God not send plagues over Egypt where Israel was not affected? Didn't Jesus tell us not to rejoice because the powers that be were subject unto us? You've missed the mark. And this was a flood thread. So, deuces.

False, since you are attempting to make English Tenses out of Hebrew tenses. The following verse refutes your idea.

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished (Heb-brought to perfection), and ALL the host of them.

ALL of the host of Heaven includes the last sinner to be saved. Heaven's "host" will not be complete without them. Do you think the last sinner is safely in Heaven? Or is their Salvation in the future? At the end of the present 6th Day, the Day of Salvation, according to Jesus? 2Co 6:2
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Genesis is factually unscientific.

False. The only thing unscientific about Genesis is interpretation. See if you can find these things in Genesis and refute them Scientifically or in any other way?

1. We live in a Multiverse. Gen 1:6-8 and Gen 2:4
2. Adam lived with Jesus for Billions of years. Gen 2:4-7
3. Adam's descendants and the sons of God (prehistoric people) could produce children together. Gen 6:4

Only the people of the last days have the "increased knowledge" to understand Genesis according to Daniel 12:4. Amen?
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,631
7,164
✟340,595.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Let me draw your attention to the text at the left side of the graph. Note that it says "variation from the 1961-1990 average".

As has been repeatedly pointed out, these are temperature differences relative to today, not absolute temperatures. If nothing else is spelled out, the year 1950 is used as a baseline in such comparisions.

The reason why 1950 is used is shown here Before Present - Wikipedia

I suspect it's no use - it's been explained to him before, multiple times, by multiple posters, in multiple different ways.

I suspect one of the following conclusions is correct:
Justatruthseeker is not reading those posts
Justatruthseeker is reading those post, but not comprehending them
Justatruthseeker is reading those post and comprehending them, but rejecting the information
Justatruthseeker is reading those post and comprehending them and accepting the information, but is maintaining his pre-existing beliefs anyway
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0