Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[durangodawood]

....I look forward to a substantive rebuttal.

lol...

 

[lasthero]

lol...

Hey, be fair, he probably doesn't know -57 that well yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Baseless assertions? Surely you jest.
...seriously...baseless assertions? Do you not know there are tons of websites that show the many problems with radiometric dating? AND, you say my position is baseless? Get real please.

Websites are not evidence. And no, there are thousands of websites that make idiotic claims about radiometric dating. Some of them are lies and some just show the terrible ignorance of the authors.

But I tell you what, bring up your best arguments, one at a time, against radiometric dating and I and others will gladly show you the errors with those arguments.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I find it rather amusing how you dismissed...simply waved off...processes that evolutionism uses.

I don't know what you are saying here. Please elaborate.

It would also be good if you responded to the arguments I made. Otherwise I am (along with any other reader) forced to assume you can offer no substantive rebuttal.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Hey, be fair, he probably doesn't know -57 that well yet.

To be perfectly honest I got pretty much what I expected. But I'm hoping he might respond to a polite request to respond more constructively. At the very least the post can be viewed as an open challenge to any Floodist that comes upon it.

 

[Hoghead1]

-57, I think you need to do a more careful study of those websites. The info. they provide on dating techniques is not at all accurate. For example, they generally neglect to mention that various difficulties or contaminates in the dating procedures are always taken into account by the researchers. In fact, sources of contamination were first pointed out by the scientists themselves, not the creation-science people.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your facts are fiction.

Yet another creationist who refuses to deal with the evidence. Creationists like to claim that they are using the same evidence, but all of their posts demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you not know there are tons of websites that show the many problems with radiometric dating?

What I posted has NOTHING TO DO WITH RADIOMETRIC DATING. I didn't list any ages. I correctly stated that there is a correlation between THE RATIO OF ISOTOPES IN ROCKS and specific species. The ratio of isotopes in rocks is not a radiometric date. For example, if we determine the concentration of 40Ar and 40K by mass spectrometry in rocks at the K/T boundary, we find that the ratio is 0.0364. For every 1 mole of 40K there are 0.0364 moles of 40Ar. We never find a dinosaur fossil above rocks with a Ar/K ratio of 0.0364. Never.

Without using radiometric dating and evolution, how do you explain the correlation between these facts?

 

[Doveaman]

How is it a strawman?

I never said that germ theory and the theory of gravity is wrong because of miracles. That's your strawman.

Just stop and think about that. When have miracles EVER been a reasonable or logical explanation for ANYTHING?

Ever since man was created in God's image.

When have miracles ever been a valid explanation for things that we were ignorant of? At one time, we had no explanation for lightning. Is lightning supernatural? No. It never was.

Was Hiroshima destroyed by the U.S government? No. It was destroyed by the atomic bomb.

But there were unseen, intelligent forces behind the bomb.

That is exactly what you are doing. The use of miracles is an attempt to explain away history.

Actually, miracles help us to make better sense of the history. Especially when the science makes no sense.

That is so backwards, I am surprised you can say it with a straight face.

My face is round, not straight.

 

[Doveaman]

Then why did God create nature, Doveaman, if it is something he has to avoid, work over and against, in order to get the job done?

Working over and against nature is required to get the job done.

God's manipulation of nature reminds us of His sovereignty, even over nature so we wont worship nature or be fooled by it.

Faith comes by hearing God's word, not by observing nature (Romans 10:17).

Nature was created for man to live in. It is meant to be a home that can be remodeled as necessary, and not meant to be a substitute for God's word.

Also, it is up for grabs exactly what is meant by the Virgin Birth?

Conception and birth without sexual intercourse.

It appears only in Matthew and Luke?

Would you have preferred if it had appeared only in Matthew or Luke?

Was it, then, a later addition to Christianity?

Nope. It is a part of the very fabric of Christianity, along with the resurrection.

No virgin birth, no Christianity.

Is virgin the most accurate translation?

Yes.

How would it justify Christ being of the line of David if Joseph is not his natural father?

Through Mary His natural mother.

Luke 3:23-38:
"Now Jesus Himself was about thirty years old when He began His ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli"

Joseph was not the biological son of Heli, just as Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph.

Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, just as Jesus was son-in-law of Joseph.

Luke 3, therefore, is describing the genealogy of Mary (Joseph's in-laws) going back to Nathan, the son of David.

Matthew 1 is describing the genealogy of Joseph going back to Solomon, the other son of David.

 

[Doveaman]

Magic is indeed beyond nature.

This is because miracles influence nature, but nature cannot influence miracles.

But since we know that God does almost everything by natural means in this world, we don't have to consider magic in our investigations.

Since God often works through nature, you do.

But we still don't have to account for magic, when studying nature. He made it to work in a consistent, predictable way.

Except when it doesn't.

Nope. If Jesus does a miracle in extending the mass of fish for distribution, that does not mean that miracles are part of a fish.

It means that the extended mass of the fish has no natural scientific explanation.

We have a good deal of data on that. And it all says you're wrong.

Or your interpretation of the data is wrong.

We discovered, for example, how to make computers out of dirt, without once considering a miracle.

And we discovered, for example, that God made a man out of dirt, without once considering science.

Likewise, we correctly expected to find feathered dinosaurs, and whales with functional legs, without any recourse to magic.

And we correctly expected that God is the creator of dinosaur feathers and whale legs, without any recourse to science.

Think about it, and I'm sure you can figure out why.

Yeah, God did it.

 

[Hoghead1]

That puzzles me, Doveaman. The way you cave it, God cerates nature and then finds he really can't work with it and has to cast it aside. Ho w unfortunate, he created something that just stands in the way of him as an anti-God principle. That is one of teh great contradictions of classical theism. The latter contended that nothing could stand over and against God so as to exclude or. Yet, the natural order, the principle of complexity and change do just that. If would seem that reality consists of two separate, exclusive circles, one denoting nature, the other denoting God. Hence, God and nature are but parts of some larger whole which includes them both and yet transcends each. What do you call that? Meta-God?

 

[Hoghead1]

Nature and magic may be a lot closer than you think. Take a look at al the wonderful things we can do today. If your ancestors came back to life and looked around, they would surely think we are all magicians. Also, just how does the natural order work? Many "paranormal" events may be pointing to deeper operations in teh natural order than those we are ordinarily aware of. Given that Christ is a major relegation of God, then God chooses to reveal himself in and through our humanity and not over and against it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never said that germ theory and the theory of gravity is wrong because of miracles.

I was showing that your same logic would also disprove those theories. How is that not true?

Ever since man was created in God's image.

Give me an example. Show me a single instance where a supernatural explanation has been verified through observation and replaced a natural explanation.

Was Hiroshima destroyed by the U.S government? No. It was destroyed by the atomic bomb.

No, it wasn't. IT WAS A MIRACLE!!!!! JUST IGNORE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE!!!!!

That's your argument in a nutshell.

But there were unseen, intelligent forces behind the bomb.

I can see Dr. Oppenheimer just fine.

Actually, miracles help us to make better sense of the history.

Give me a single example.

 

[98cwitr]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has been closed. The Staff at Christian Forums would like to encourage and remind you that our site rules call you to address one another with respect. I am posting the rule for everyone's review

Flaming and Harassment
Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.
Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.


This topic may be discussed in a new thread, and if there is flaming there, then it will be closed too.

MOD HAT OFF​