Evolution - Rescuing out-of-place Fossils

[RickG]

The problem is that dad is claiming that the Bible is the inspired "Word of God" and is perfect. Some of your rationalization clearly does not pass the sniff test, especially for what were supposed to be Jesus' last words. When you see that gross of a difference between Gospels it is fairly obvious that there was some sort of error even if Jesus was the son of God. The writers of various books have always been human and have always made mistakes.

And we have been kind. No one has linked to the hundreds of self contradictions in the Bible.

Actually that idea comes from the following:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


​

Thus, the bible is made up of scripture, or actually, what man has decided was scripture. And noting the part that says "for correction", I guess man forgot to fix all those contradictions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually that idea comes from the following:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


​

Thus, the bible is made up of scripture, or actually, what man has decided was scripture. And noting the part that says "for correction", I guess man forgot to fix all those contradictions.

Yes, dad knows that I have dealt with that verse. As you can see it says that the entire Bible is "profitable for doctrine....". That means it is of use. Morality stories are of use whether they are true or not, a concept that dad cannot seem to understand. So the Bible says that all scripture is "inspired". It does not say it is correct. If you are worried about the soul of a person and that is what you are trying to save the actual way that life began is not all that important. And the Bible did not teach the least bit of science to the Hebrews. How about a simple commandment to "Wash your hands". It was probably on the third tablet that Moses had (Mel Brooks reference).

 

[RickG]

Yes, dad knows that I have dealt with that verse. As you can see it says that the entire Bible is "profitable for doctrine....". That means it is of use. Morality stories are of use whether they are true or not, a concept that dad cannot seem to understand. So the Bible says that all scripture is "inspired". It does not say it is correct. If you are worried about the soul of a person and that is what you are trying to save the actual way that life began is not all that important. And the Bible did not teach the least bit of science to the Hebrews. How about a simple commandment to "Wash your hands". It was probably on the third tablet that Moses had (Mel Brooks reference).

The only difference I would make is the reference to the entire bible. The bible is a collection of independent (presumed) scriptures put together well after Jesus' death, including 2 Timothy.

 

[Loudmouth]

KTS the diagnosis of the bird tracks came from the researchers cited, not myself.

Everyone agrees that the tracks are consistent with birds.

I am still waiting for you to explain the relationship between the objects that were dated to the Triassic and the sediments with the bird tracks, and then do the same for the material with the Eocene date.

I have already explained each of these, but you completely ignored it. Maybe it would help if you explained it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because to have fossilization occur in animals we would need the present nature generally. The nature actually existing did not allow man or animals to be fossilized for the most part apparently.

That's completely made up.

 

[RickG]

That's completely made up.

dad makes a lot of stuff up. That's what they teach in creationism 101.

 

[[serious]]

I read that the different words that each gospel has recorded for what Jesus said on the cross was because of the different positions each was in when they heard the words. So John being near the cross with Mary would have focused on the words that Jesus spoke to him being at the feet of Jesus. Matthew wrote about the louder words when Jesus cried out as he was at the back and Luke wrote about the same but also may have heard the softer spoken into they hands I commend my spirit as he was a little close than Matthew. It can all make sense but people immediately jump to conclusions that the gospels should be perfectly alined instead of allowing the human factor of personal perspective.
gospels - What were Jesus's last words on the cross? - Christianity Stack Exchange

That works from a perspective of "each recorded what they saw, heard, and remembered" but fails from the perspective of Dad's approach that the differences in the wording from gospel to gospel are due to Jesus giving the similar sermons at different times. Since Jesus only died once, only one version can record his actual last words. Not an issue for a reasonable reading, but messes up dad's logic seven ways to Sunday.

 

[dad]

That's completely made up.

One way to prove your accusation--prove a same state past! Otherwise you may not invoke it for what fossilized and how! Boy are you hooped.

 

[dad]

That works from a perspective of "each recorded what they saw, heard, and remembered" but fails from the perspective of Dad's approach that the differences in the wording from gospel to gospel are due to Jesus giving the similar sermons at different times. Since Jesus only died once, only one version can record his actual last words. Not an issue for a reasonable reading, but messes up dad's logic seven ways to Sunday.

No, as I pointed out. To get all of what Jesus said on the cross we simply add the words. Duh. Not all of the four writers recorded it all apprently. Whooopee do.

 

[dad]

I'm sure each gospel writer just picked which final words to report because they all were, of course, true last words. Something like:
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” then with a loud cry, he breathed his last or gave up his spirit

Oh, but maybe that "loud cry was when he said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

One more? Maybe with that last exhale he said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

That totally works in a non-tortured not-at-all force fit kind of way!

Here is the deal...from your last post here I could say this


"maybe that "loud cry was when he said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”

or
"That totally works in a non-tortured not-at-all force fit kind of way!"


or


"With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

or

"each gospel writer just picked which final words to report"



These are all things you said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One way to prove your accusation--prove a same state past! Otherwise you may not invoke it for what fossilized and how! Boy are you hooped.

Nope, the rules of logic say that you must prove a "different state past". We can show as far back as we can measure that the state was the same as today. Light coming from stars shows that the state was the same many millions of years ago as today. You are the one proposing a change it is you that must find evidence for it.

Remember when you demand that biggles show a different state past when he claimed one for Christ's time? His nonsense caught you. He was pulling your leg, but for the same reason he would have to show a different state past so do you.

 

[dad]

Nope, the rules of logic say that you must prove a "different state past".

False. I believe the bible and it indicates one. Science cannot prove any state in the past so it is fired.

We can show as far back as we can measure that the state was the same as today.

That says nothing. You do not go back very far!

Light coming from stars shows that the state was the same many millions of years ago as today.

No, it shows that time in our spacetime is a certain way! It shows you know not what time is and how it may exist...or not far away. Remember a year is time. A light year is time as we experience and know it, projected onto the map of the universe.

You are the one proposing a change it is you that must find evidence for it.

You are the one proposing no change it is you that must find evidence for that. Until then..we believe.

Remember when you demand that bshmte show a different state past when he claimed one for Christ's time? His nonsense caught you. He was pulling your leg, but for the same reason he would have to show a different state past so do you.

No more than last week is a mystery as to what nature existed. Get real.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. I believe the bible and it indicates one. Science cannot prove any state in the past so it is fired.

No, you can only believe that by the worst wretched forced interpretation. And it does not matter what you believe. No matter what you claim the Bible cannot be used as objective evidence. If you doubt me try to use the Bible in a court of law.

That says nothing. You do not go back very far!

Millions of years in the past is not very far?

No, it shows that time in our spacetime is a certain way! It shows you know not what time is and how it may exist...or not far away. Remember a year is time. A light year is time as we experience and know it, projected onto the map of the universe.

No, you are misusing the concept of time as a fourth dimension. You are merely trying to sound "sciency". It is not very convincing.

You are the one proposing no change it is you that must find evidence for that. Until then..we believe.

No, I am asking for evidence of a change. No evidence means no change.

No more than last week is a mystery as to what nature existed. Get real.

So now you are admitting that were lying when you made your foolish altered state claims? If that is the case all is forgiven.

 

[dad]

No, you can only believe that by the worst wretched forced interpretation. And it does not matter what you believe. No matter what you claim the Bible cannot be used as objective evidence. If you doubt me try to use the Bible in a court of law.



Millions of years in the past is not very far?



No, you are misusing the concept of time as a fourth dimension. You are merely trying to sound "sciency". It is not very convincing.





No, I am asking for evidence of a change. No evidence means no change.





So now you are admitting that were lying when you made your foolish altered state claims? If that is the case all is forgiven.

All that aside, fossils need not be out of place to be young, or to have the ages of layers not represent what old agers have claimed.


You can talk all day about your religion and how you believe real hard in a present nature in the past, it is of no value. You can try to convince us that we must view evidence in the light of your biases and beliefs. No. We are free to use the brain God gave us.

 

[RickG]

All that aside, fossils need not be out of place to be young, or to have the ages of layers not represent what old agers have claimed.

None are out of place dad. And don't go a pull up one of the deliberately misrepresented AiG claims. Show us in the scientific literature where fossil are out of place.

 

[dad]

None are out of place dad. And don't go a pull up one of the deliberately misrepresented AiG claims. Show us in the scientific literature where fossil are out of place.

I am not saying they are out of place by and large. I am saying that the place they are in does not represent what you claim it does...such as old ages and godless evolving.

 

[RickG]

I am not saying they are out of place by and large. I am saying that the place they are in does not represent what you claim it does...such as old ages and godless evolving.

Yadda, yadda, yadda; and you have zero evidence for everything you claim.

 

[dad]

Yadda, yadda, yadda; and you have zero evidence for everything you claim.

I have the evidence of your failure to prove the state you claim as part of science and the state upon which all the godless so called science claims rest. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have the evidence of your failure to prove the state you claim as part of science and the state upon which all the godless so called science claims rest. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

There is no evidence that you would ever accept. Don't equate your complete denial of reality to a lack of evidence.

 

[RickG]

I have the evidence of your failure to prove the state you claim as part of science and the state upon which all the godless so called science claims rest. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

dad, I have stated to you a number of times, as we look back in time through numerous methods we see the same physics. It does not change. If it had changed, that change would be easily observable. This is because each element is made up a specific way which is characteristic of its specific sub-atomic structure. If it had changed in the past, it would be a different element all together.

Do you know how many isotopes of carbon there are and which are stable and which are and why?