Fossil Record not consistent with Global Flood

[Aman777]

What do you mean?

Adam's firmament was made the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8 Adam was made BEFORE the plants herbs and rain on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7 He lived with Jesus and watched as He caused the Big Bang of our Cosmos on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4 and watched Jesus light the FIRST Stars on the 4th Day Gen 1:16 which was 550 Million years AFTER the BB, as dated by the latest WMAP discoveries. This reveals that it was late on the 3rd Day when our Cosmos was made.

Adam lived in a body like that of Jesus and knew no death until after he sinned. Adam also had a mind like God's Gen 3:22 with the ability to know both good and evil which means Humans are destined to Judge every other living creature including angels. There are currently some 7 Billion Humans (descendants of Adam) on planet Earth.

 

[Hieronymus]

Adam's firmament

What..?
What kind of Bible do you use?
Genesis 1

 

[Aman777]

What..?
What kind of Bible do you use?
Genesis 1

I use the King James Version of Scripture and the online Blue Letter Bible to access the original Hebrew and Greek meanings of the words. I read the Bible for what it says and not for what another tells me it says. I support my views with the agreement of Scripture science and history. God Bless you

 

[Hieronymus]

I use the King James Version of Scripture and the online Blue Letter Bible to access the original Hebrew and Greek meanings of the words. I read the Bible for what it says and not for what another tells me it says. I support my views with the agreement of Scripture science and history. God Bless you

You mean you mix problematic naturalistic models with Genesis.
No wonder it doesn't make sense.
May God bless you to.

 

[Aman777]

You mean you mix problematic naturalistic models with Genesis.
No wonder it doesn't make sense.
May God bless you to.

It doesn't make sense to people of Religion or a belief passed down for thousands of years and accepted by Faith only. It does agree with what is written and God told Daniel HOW he hid His Truth from others in the Scientific Discoveries of the last days.

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

God's Truth was hidden until the last days in the scientific discoveries of today. We live today at Gen 1:27 because God is STILL creating Adam (mankind) in His Image which is in Christ Spiritually. This will continue until Jesus returns to this Earth to fulfill the prophecy of Gen 1:28-31 at the end of the present 6th Day/Age (Yowm-period of time). Amen?

 

[Hieronymus]

No amen from me on that, sorry...

 

[Aman777]

No amen from me on that, sorry...

Do you actually believe that there is one truth for God and another for science and history? Are scientists just searching for lies? The problem is in the ancient traditional religious story of the creation which cannot be understood until the last days before Jesus returns. Here's an example:

Mankind will discover that we live in a Multi-verse composed of other Heavens/firmaments or Universes. God told us He made one firmament which He called Heaven, on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8 He told us in Gen 2:4 that He made other HeavenS (plural) on the 3rd Day, which means God made a Multi-verse according to Scripture and the FUTURE discovery that we indeed live in a Multi-verse. This should be confirmed by Science this year. Remember this when it is announced. Amen?

 

[Hieronymus]

Do you actually believe that there is one truth for God and another for science and history?

Did i say that?
You know what i said.
You need discernment.
You should make yourself aware of the problems the naturalistic paradigm has, not just mix it with the Word of God.
Your rendition of Genesis is not Biblical.

 

[Hieronymus]

@Aman777
You seem to be unaware of the scientific evidence in support of the Bible, which is a shame.
Popular science is naturalistic,meaning the exclude even the possibility of an active God in their scenarios.
They believe, and they have you believe (because they have a HUGE platform) dead unconscious things can perform miracles.
Their models assume this. They boast it is science and that it is proven.
I used to believe them too, until people pointed out the problems to me.
BIG problems in logic and evidence.
Naturalism is a religion opposed to Theism.

 

[JacksBratt]

When I'm at work, I can occasionally browse the forums*, but I can't watch youtube videos (or at least, can't listen to the sound). I'm sure there are others. Youtube videos also don't allow you the courtesy of skimming to the relevant bits, unless the person linking to the video does it for you. Not that youtube is inherently a poor source, but it, like all sources, should be taken with a grain of salt.


*Have you ever tried installing Autodesk software on an old computer? Takes forever.

I understand. Sorry for the knee jerk reaction. I have just had so many people disregard a point I have made or facts I have presented due to my information coming from You Tube.

I too, at work, can not access many of the links posted here and have to wait until I get home and log on here.

 

[JacksBratt]

You're right, there is a wealth of information on youtube, much of it valid and well presented. Personally, I don't feel it's of much use in an online debate such as this one though. I'm sure no one's got a problem with members suggesting recommended viewing, if someone makes an assertion though and then posts an hour long video when asked to present evidence of their claim, why should whoever's arguing with them have to spend an hour watching the video, taking notes , checking facts and forming rebuttals to an hour's worth of presentation. It's lazy debating.

I agree. It may be advantageous to advise the time in the video where the point is presented in the video. This would save time and allow the information to be located. Some times You Tube is the only access to a certain, specific, point being made by a certain source and there are no other options.

 

[JacksBratt]

What an impressive amount of evidence you've provided to back up your assertions! Well shoot, it sure is a good thing that the vast, vast majority of PhD biologists, geologists, physicists, chemists, <insert any more fields you think have some sort of global, century-long conspiracy to hide the truth> stay in academia after they've finished their degrees, never do any experiments or expeditions while in academia, never go out to do any science of their own, and certainly avoid research that can test and potentially prove the leading hypotheses wrong or the creationist PRATTs correct.

Wait, hold on, I'm being informed that's not what happens at all. Also the guy who informed me seemed to have a bit of a nasty temper about the issue. Rather, many of these people spend an awful lot of time working in the field, applying what they've learned to do things like, say, discover oil.

http://ageofrocks.org/2015/02/08/can-young-earth-creationists-find-oil/

Every major oil company employs kinetic models in their search for hydrocarbons, based on the techniques that I have described above. Since these models assume that we correctly know the age of rocks and their temperature history, petroleum exploration provides us with millions of ongoing scientific tests, which collectively could disprove the conventional geologic timescale and confirm the young-Earth paradigm.

Of course, they don’t.

Instead, the widespread success of oil and gas exploration is perhaps the greatest testament to the accuracy of our age estimates. If the geologic column were created within the past 6,000 years, then no oil or gas should be found today, for the same reason you can’t make a medium-rare pot roast in only 30 seconds. By asserting that the age of rocks is somehow irrelevant to exploration techniques, Dr. Snelling has essentially told every cook to throw out their timers. But I think you all know better than this, and for that matter, so does Andrew Snelling.​

Or help treat deadly diseases:

Or find out more about our planet. The fact of the matter is that if your conspiracy theory (and it's up there with the "aliens did 9/11" folks, make no mistake) held up, we would not see useful results from the science. But we do. I mean, what do you expect? Science is typically results-driven. In fact, it's exactly this kind of work in the field that led Glenn Morton to realize that young earth creationism was intellectually bankrupt, and very nearly led him to abandon his faith altogether. But of course, the reason why every university in the world teaches this stuff and not a single one uses ICR as a source is because they're all just anti-Christian. Riiiiight.

Well, that me be the case in some situations. However, I have friends who have two sons. Each went to university and stayed there.... period. Took their courses, got their degrees kept going for further study and now are tenured professors....teaching the course which they studied. Neither ever worked in a real life job outside the academic umbrella.....

So, what exactly do they have to offer the students paying exorbitant amounts of money? Regurgitated information that is nothing more than recycled every year after year and controlled by the powers that be and financially control academia....and certainly not anything new that would upset the smoothly oiled machine of "empirical scientific "fact", or change anything in a way that would incite the student to ask questions about the information they are being fed, or, heaven forbid, suggest anything other than whats on the well worn path of the curriculum.

Garbage in Garbage out.... repeat.

 

[Aman777]

Did i say that?
You know what i said.
You need discernment.
You should make yourself aware of the problems the naturalistic paradigm has, not just mix it with the Word of God.
Your rendition of Genesis is not Biblical.

False accusation which you cannot support Scripturally. God's Truth MUST agree with every discovery of science and history of YOUR interpretation is in error. That's because God, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is the Author.
2Pe 1:21 Either point out my error or everyone will see your false view of what is actually written. Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

I read with a chuckle what you said about universities, Jacksbratt. I am an academic and I full well know you are way off base and presenting but a silly caricature of university life.

 

[Hoghead1]

Jacksbratt, how does your anti-intellectual propaganda and disrespect for higher education contribute positively to this forum?

 

[The Cadet]

Well, that me be the case in some situations. However, I have friends who have two sons. Each went to university and stayed there.... period. Took their courses, got their degrees kept going for further study and now are tenured professors....teaching the course which they studied. Neither ever worked in a real life job outside the academic umbrella.....

Sometimes it happens. It's less common in STEM fields (because when a person's research can help you find your next multi-million-dollar oil well, the going rate tends to be pretty decent), but it happens. So what? Does this somehow invalidate everyone else? And furthermore, did these sons never do any research in the field? I find it downright impossible to believe that they were accepted for tenure without any new research. I mean, do you even know what goes into applying for tenure? It's fiercely competitive, and it is expected that you produce useful research - otherwise, there's no point in giving you tenure. So this doesn't really help your point - even if they never left the system, their work must necessarily have brought them to a point where the model either works... or doesn't.

So, what exactly do they have to offer the students paying exorbitant amounts of money? Regurgitated information that is nothing more than recycled every year after year and controlled by the powers that be and financially control academia....and certainly not anything new that would upset the smoothly oiled machine of "empirical scientific "fact", or change anything in a way that would incite the student to ask questions about the information they are being fed, or, heaven forbid, suggest anything other than whats on the well worn path of the curriculum.

http://physics.columbia.edu/files/physics/content/Qual_Mech- Section 1.pdf

They are given nothing more than "regurgitated information recycled every year", so it should be trivial for you to find what you need to solve the problem (without looking at the attached answers, of course). They were given, on average, about 20 minutes per question - could you solve any question there in that time with an open book? Could you solve any question there in the full two hours given for the test with an open book?

Students at university are not simply given regurgitated information. I spent enough time at university myself to figure this one out. They're taught methods, shown how to learn effectively, and given access to a vast wealth of information. And that's without even getting into the opportunities for real scientific research in most STEM fields. You have no understanding of what university is or what it has to offer, yet you still somehow see fit to repeat the claim that it doesn't allow dissent (completely ignoring my response to your last post), that it's just about regurgitating facts, and all the other crap you bring up.

Garbage in Garbage out.... repeat.

Except, of course, that science has ways to detect and correct this cycle. If evolution didn't work, we wouldn't be able to go out into the field and find things like Tiktaalik. If the earth were 6,000 years old, geologists would not be able to accurately predict where to find oil based on information pertaining to an earth that is billions of years old. These theories are not stuck in stasis; they are constantly being put forward for falsification. The reason the counter-arguments put forward by your side haven't accomplished anything is because your side is intellectually bankrupt, and the arguments hold less water than an incontinent octogenarian drunkard on Lozol. With a pierced jugular. I mean, just to be clear here - ICR is still hawking the same inane "lost squadron" argument that was debunked decades ago and trivially wrong.

Oh, and by the way? You still have provided absolutely no evidence or reasoning to back up any of your claims. Please do so. Or retract your claims. Then again, I won't hold my breath.

 

[JacksBratt]

Sometimes it happens. It's less common in STEM fields (because when a person's research can help you find your next multi-million-dollar oil well, the going rate tends to be pretty decent), but it happens. So what? Does this somehow invalidate everyone else? And furthermore, did these sons never do any research in the field? I find it downright impossible to believe that they were accepted for tenure without any new research. I mean, do you even know what goes into applying for tenure? It's fiercely competitive, and it is expected that you produce useful research - otherwise, there's no point in giving you tenure. So this doesn't really help your point - even if they never left the system, their work must necessarily have brought them to a point where the model either works... or doesn't.



http://physics.columbia.edu/files/physics/content/Qual_Mech- Section 1.pdf

They are given nothing more than "regurgitated information recycled every year", so it should be trivial for you to find what you need to solve the problem (without looking at the attached answers, of course). They were given, on average, about 20 minutes per question - could you solve any question there in that time with an open book? Could you solve any question there in the full two hours given for the test with an open book?

Students at university are not simply given regurgitated information. I spent enough time at university myself to figure this one out. They're taught methods, shown how to learn effectively, and given access to a vast wealth of information. And that's without even getting into the opportunities for real scientific research in most STEM fields. You have no understanding of what university is or what it has to offer, yet you still somehow see fit to repeat the claim that it doesn't allow dissent (completely ignoring my response to your last post), that it's just about regurgitating facts, and all the other crap you bring up.



Except, of course, that science has ways to detect and correct this cycle. If evolution didn't work, we wouldn't be able to go out into the field and find things like Tiktaalik. If the earth were 6,000 years old, geologists would not be able to accurately predict where to find oil based on information pertaining to an earth that is billions of years old. These theories are not stuck in stasis; they are constantly being put forward for falsification. The reason the counter-arguments put forward by your side haven't accomplished anything is because your side is intellectually bankrupt, and the arguments hold less water than an incontinent octogenarian drunkard on Lozol. With a pierced jugular. I mean, just to be clear here - ICR is still hawking the same inane "lost squadron" argument that was debunked decades ago and trivially wrong.

Oh, and by the way? You still have provided absolutely no evidence or reasoning to back up any of your claims. Please do so. Or retract your claims. Then again, I won't hold my breath.

Well, I may not be 100% solid on my explanation of how universities are run. However, the grads I see that come through our doors and into our field are all theory and full of spunk to set the world right. That is until they realize that the processes we use in our field... almost all the time..... the test sample never read the text book. They expect A + B = C and find that A + B = 4. Then it's like "we were never taught that". The real world is much different than their school environment.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What..?
What kind of Bible do you use?
Genesis 1

The same one as you. Aman777 has the best bible interpretation... when what you are looking for is a wild ride of a good read. I wish he would do what he does with Genesis with the whole thing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Did i say that?
You know what i said.
You need discernment.
You should make yourself aware of the problems the naturalistic paradigm has, not just mix it with the Word of God.
Your rendition of Genesis is not Biblical.

Regardless as to how sacrilegious you view it, you have to admit, it draws you in, and you want to keep reading it just for the fact of how novel it is. In my opinion, it makes for a much more fun read than the actual bible.

 

[Shemjaza]

The same one as you. Aman777 has the best bible interpretation... when what you are looking for is a wild ride of a good read. I wish he would do what he does with Genesis with the whole thing.

Hmm, I wonder what the Aman777 version of Revelation would be like?