Fossils are fake

[beamishboy]

There is an alternative, and it is used by many Young Earth Creationists.

Declare the whole of biology and geology as man’s attempt to run away from God. That in turn means all atheists actually sincerely believe in God and that has been stated many times here on CF.

You can use the results of all these things, but you mustn't ever understand them. Genetics and evolution are out but you can do animal breeding as long as you don't get into the theory.

Declare Cosmology, of course, and physics (there are people in CF who believe the speed of light was different in past, that is impossible but it doesn’t stop people hoping, and people who believe time moved at a different speed which is pretty meaningless) to be a product of fools.

Then just reject: humanism, philosophy of religion, and the rest of philosophy, and most of theology and sociology and psychology and natural history, anthropology and human history.

Just about everything discovered since the Dark Ages ended, and you can be a happy Young Earth Creationist. It is that simple.

Do you agree that Young earth creationism is only a problem in America? I've never encountered anyone with that sort of strong belief or problem in England. The first time I've heard of YEC was when I saw a video on youtube about how strongly anti-evolution some Americans are. What a fascinating nation. Some of the best scientists are there and yet we see people with 15th century mentality too.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

Do you agree that Young earth creationism is only a problem in America? I've never encountered anyone with that sort of strong belief or problem in England. The first time I've heard of YEC was when I saw a video on youtube about how strongly anti-evolution some Americans are. What a fascinating nation. Some of the best scientists are there and yet we see people with 15th century mentality too.

no it's not only a 'problem' in america.. the thing about the UK is that we dont have the same protestant base.. the anglicans are making an apology to Darwin.. I think they should make an apology to Dawkins as well now, for believing in God, well some of them anyway.. to say as i heard one woman say recently on tv.. that Palin was dangerous because of her views on creation and abortion.. well.. is it dangerous to believe in creation? it might be dangerous to want to blow up the Russians..

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

thanks for the link (TREX).. i was trying to find info. on that and had a 'run-around' on the internet trying to find out anything.. beginning to think there was a conspiracy...

Just a thing on the fossils... and when you think about it.. large numbers of animals and trees/vegetation buried by huge amount of sediment.. anyone? anyone? How is this supposed to happen as we are taught in schools.. there was a swamp, and it got covered in mud etc.. what about the mud/dust/sand/ getting mixed into the vegetation? the coal is not run-through with sediment.. or am i missing something? the sediment drops out? it's obvious... the animals and trees and vegetation was washed away by the flood and the sediment came up from the earth and covered it all forming the fossil record and coal and oil... and another thing! how long can oil be held under rock under pressure? 200 million years?

 

[huldah153]

Ironically, it's often the creationists who fake the fossils -- Calaveruas Skull, Freiburg Skull, Malachite Man, Paluxy River footprints, etc.

 

[beamishboy]

no it's not only a 'problem' in america.. the thing about the UK is that we dont have the same protestant base.. the anglicans are making an apology to Darwin.. I think they should make an apology to Dawkins as well now, for believing in God, well some of them anyway.. to say as i heard one woman say recently on tv.. that Palin was dangerous because of her views on creation and abortion.. well.. is it dangerous to believe in creation? it might be dangerous to want to blow up the Russians..

Nobody in England makes any apology to Darwin. We're not Americans who go berserk whenever someone talks about evolution. Francis Collins is a great American scientist who was the first man to map out the whole human genome. The BBC touted him as the "greatest of scientists today". The impact Collins makes is that he is a wonderful Christian. In his book, The Language of God, he talks about how when he gives talks in churches in America (of course), people walked out of the churches when they found out that he accepted the truth of evolution. This can only happen in America.

But Collins is a fine Christian. In his debate with Richard Dawkins (the man who has a reputation of constantly tearing to pieces all anti-evolution Christians) he managed to trump Dawkins. Dawkins could not trap him with evolution because he accepted it. Later, Dawkins asked Collins how he could tolerate "the clowns" of Christianity who disbelieved evolution. One would have thought Collins would be miffed by anti-evolution Christians because they have walked out of his talks. Instead, Collins was very kind. He chided Dawkins for his arrogance and said that anti-evolution Christians were sincere even if they were ignorant of science. I thought that was very gracious of him and very Christian too.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

In his debate with Richard Dawkins (the man who has a reputation of constantly tearing to pieces all anti-evolution Christians...

i havn't seen any of this tearing to pieces anti-evolutionists.. i dont really follow the ranting of dawkins.. i've heard his opinions on Jehovah.. on a video i was watching about something else.. i was thinking that our society gives these anti-christian celebrities a platform to 'dis' Jehovah whenever possible.. on tv, in schools etc. i suppose we can't censor these people.. they are free to run around God-hating.. I am so fed up with the anti-christian conspiracy in this country.. that i find it hard to find anything on tv which isn't anti-christian to watch.. eg. that recent program on Mary Magdelane.. we all know that women had a big role in the early church.. but what that program was about, as usual, was saying things like.. 'the myth of the empty tomb'.. that Mary Mag. had a vision of Jesus outside the tomb.. and so the others all started having visions of Jesus.. nothing about st. Paul.. there is a word in English to describe this sort of rubbish, but i wont use it here.. The UK has gone down the toilet in these last days.. i will chuck out my tv. soon in disgust...

 

[Tinker Grey]

Francis Collins is a great American scientist who was the first man to map out the whole human genome.

This is wrong. Your wording suggest that he did this single handedly. This is not true. This was a cooperative effort among hundreds of scientists. He was the administrative head of the project. To be sure, he contributed more than a little science to the project and fully understood the process. But to say "he did it" is an exaggeration.

 

[busterdog]

Did anyone ever think of this? Why do you think it takes so long to dig up fossils? They seriously spend years chipping away rock to get one piece of bone. Maybe it's because they're ACTUALLY CARVING THE FOSSILS OUT OF STONE. Fossils are just carved stone. They were not already there. The scientists created them out of nothing.

If you just leave bones lying on the ground, which is how they are left when something dies, they do not fossilize. After years they get broken and smashed, water washes away all the calcium, and nothing is left. Fossils are just another myth to promote evolution and deny the reality of God's work.

There is lots of good science behind the idea that you are correct that extraordinary events are needed to create fossils. As you say, most things that die turn to dust, not fossils. The Genesis flood is one method of rapid deposition of strata that can account for the fossils: things get buried very quickly. This means that rock is created more quickly than most will admit.

There are all kinds of fakes in science, on both sides. I think there is plenty of fudging about the index fossils and their relationship to various dating methods.

Please keep coming to this site. Some have bad manners and cant resist ridicule at every opportunity. Ignore them. I see that you are 16 years old. But, you have a very good observation.

 

[busterdog]

Some of the best scientists are there and yet we see people with 15th century mentality too.

You can go back much farther than that if you wish. I am working on the 1st Century.

Europe evangelized the world and build the most beautiful temples the world has seen. But, the Church in Europe is withering, as is the Church in America, but you are considerably ahead of us. Having more believers, we have more creationists also.

 

[Chesterton]

Yesterday I thought about partially defending her. I was going to cut and paste a couple of paragraphs from the talkorigins.org site where an evolutionist is discussing the many types of archaeological fraud, but I thought that might be a cheap shot. (It’s on the site somewhere where the Piltdown Man fraud is discussed.) But I just saw what Busterdog said and I wanted to concur: Good work, lolharpoons, keep questioning.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

Yesterday I thought about partially defending her. I was going to cut and paste a couple of paragraphs from the talkorigins.org site where an evolutionist is discussing the many types of archaeological fraud, but I thought that might be a cheap shot. (It’s on the site somewhere where the Piltdown Man fraud is discussed.) But I just saw what Busterdog said and I wanted to concur: Good work, lolharpoons, keep questioning.

talkorigins is a rubbish site... and it's totally biased, the information is not accurate.. i doubt many scientists actually go onto that site for any reason...

 

[MorkandMindy]

Do you agree that Young earth creationism is only a problem in America? I've never encountered anyone with that sort of strong belief or problem in England. The first time I've heard of YEC was when I saw a video on youtube about how strongly anti-evolution some Americans are. What a fascinating nation. Some of the best scientists are there and yet we see people with 15th century mentality too.

Before science arrived it was assumed the Earth was five and a half thousand years old (back in 1500) as described in the Bible, in fact many were surprised it was that old.

Science concurs with that figure. The age of the Earth is very easy to compute. From the rate of flow of the rivers into the Oceans and rain directly into the oceans I calculated that the oceans would have reached their present depth in about 6,000 years.

The water cycle is just man's attempt to run away from God and proves that all scientists are afraid of God and therefore believe in God. QED

 

[beamishboy]

Before science arrived it was assumed the Earth was five and a half thousand years old (back in 1500) as described in the Bible, in fact many were surprised it was that old.

Science concurs with that figure. The age of the Earth is very easy to compute. From the rate of flow of the rivers into the Oceans and rain directly into the oceans I calculated that the oceans would have reached their present depth in about 6,000 years.

The water cycle is just man's attempt to run away from God and proves that all scientists are afraid of God and therefore believe in God. QED

What science? 16th century Shakespearean science?

 

[MorkandMindy]

What science? 16th century Shakespearean science?

I used 2006 data and a 2007 computer so it is completely up to date.

If scientists would just listen to us they would understand rising sea levels. Here we are, waving our arms about and they are just igoring the obvious answer.

 

[imind]

talkorigins is a rubbish site... and it's totally biased, the information is not accurate.. i doubt many scientists actually go onto that site for any reason...

lol. please point out some of these inaccuracies.

 

[Assyrian]

Science concurs with that figure. The age of the Earth is very easy to compute. From the rate of flow of the rivers into the Oceans and rain directly into the oceans I calculated that the oceans would have reached their present depth in about 6,000 years.

The water cycle is just man's attempt to run away from God and proves that all scientists are afraid of God and therefore believe in God. QED

You are seriously saying rain does not come from evaporation of the oceans?

I'll call Poe's law on this one. Nicely done though.

Eccles 1:7 The rivers run into the sea, but the sea is never full. Then the water returns again to the rivers and flows again to the sea.

 

[busterdog]

talkorigins is a rubbish site... and it's totally biased, the information is not accurate.. i doubt many scientists actually go onto that site for any reason...

There is a bias there, and also some good information. I find talkorigins annoying because they can never admit any merit in the comments of an adversary, which means one must sift their words very carefully. But, that is a far cry from being total rubbish.

In most arguments, there ought to be some type of position where you can say. "Well, you got me there. I dont have a great answer." One can have that position on a narrow issue without conceding the whole contest. Talkorigins, however, concedes nothing. As a result, a number of their critiques are very petty, if not catty at times.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

There is a bias there, and also some good information. I find talkorigins annoying because they can never admit any merit in the comments of an adversary, which means one must sift their words very carefully. But, that is a far cry from being total rubbish.

In most arguments, there ought to be some type of position where you can say. "Well, you got me there. I dont have a great answer." One can have that position on a narrow issue without conceding the whole contest. Talkorigins, however, concedes nothing. As a result, a number of their critiques are very petty, if not catty at times.

with a title like 'talk origins'.. you might thing that people would be open minded about origins.. but that lot have made up their mind already, and it's pointless arguing with people like that.. what get's up my nose, is the condescending attitude.. 'we know better' and there's no-one over there that accepts creation.. they are all hard-nosed evolutionists, so it's totally biased, and the information is not good.. I won't go back there, but I saw a line up of the fossil sculls of various hominids, and they had two totally different species named as 'homo habilus' I can see just by looking at the sculls and comparing them to other sculls that they are from another grouping..

 

[MorkandMindy]

...
Eccles 1:7 The rivers run into the sea, but the sea is never full. Then the water returns again to the rivers and flows again to the sea.

Ecclesiastes is poetry, consider:

Ecclesiastes 1.5: The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

 

[Assyrian]

Ecclesiastes is poetry, consider:

Ecclesiastes 1.5: The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

That is one of my favourite geocentrist verses. I also love the verse where he tells us people are animals. Eccles 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. And have you read the Dead Parrot Sketch in Eccles 12:3-6?

Ecclesiastes may be poetry, but it is also the writer attempting to understand the nature of the world around him and, well, the Meaning of Life basically.

Eccles 1:5-7 are not a metaphorical descriptions of the natural world, but the cycles of the natural world are being used to describe the nature of life. The writer meant what he said about the sun going around the earth and the water cycle. Although he seem to suggest rivers flow to the sea and return to their source underground, the writer does realise that there is a water cycle and that the ocean aren't simply filling up.

If the writer of Ecclesiastes is Solomon as v1 suggests, we get a very interesting perspective on his approach to science in Prov 25:1 These also are proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied. 2 It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out. This is a biblical mandate for science and scientific research, and if the writer of Ecclesiastes was not quite accurate in his description of the water cycle and solar system, the bible says he was right trying to search these things out.