Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Job 33:6]

I examined the photo, and write-ups in several publications, and I have to admit they are reasonably convincing.

But since so many fossils have been faked, multiple specimens from different sources must be presented before a skeptic like me would be even remotely convinced. I would also have to read what Dr. Feduccia reports, since he is one of the more rationally-minded evolutionists.

Are there other specimens?


BTW, I am on record in this forum with my belief that, from an interpretation of Genesis and intertestamental literature, the animal kingdom was genetically corrupted prior to the flood. Therefore, nothing in the fossil record would completely surprise me.

That said, evolutionists have such a poor track record with the truth, the old adage, "trust but verify", must be subordinated to "verify, then trust".


One other point: a long chain of transitional forms would be required to reasonably prove macroevolution.

Dan

There are a ton of theropods flowing in with evidence of feathers. This is something that is a relatively recent discovery, but theyre here.

Maniraptora - Wikipedia
Troodontidae - Wikipedia
Dromaeosauridae - Wikipedia
Jinfengopteryx - Wikipedia
Aurornis - Wikipedia
Eosinopteryx - Wikipedia

You're trying to fight a small battle, while a much larger war is hammering down on young earthers. If this were baseball, you would be fighting to steal a base, while we are scoring grand slams.

The guy in the youtube video already dropped the ball by not providing evidence that mesozoic flamingos existed.

You have this other youtube video with a guy saying that the fossils go from sea to land, but in the case of whales, they dont. And these fossils match the DNA.

Really, ultimately it doesnt even matter if it was the main line of theropods that had feathers, or if it was some other theropod group. It just doesnt matter, because the point is that we are hot on the trail, fine tuning the specific details. The war is won, its just a discussion of the fine details.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ill leave you with my previous points.

Feel free to post evidence for ancient flamingos. I already know they dont exist, but if you think they do, feel free to try to show me. Preferably through means that are beyond the capacity of a youtube video.

We have a fossil succession that matches DNA phylogeny. You can watch all the youtube videos you want about some guy talking about trilobites. Im telling you that its there, and its real, and there are hundreds of thousands of research papers on it.

There are dinosaurs with feathers. Or if you want to be super picky and defensive, at the least, there are archasaurs with feathers that have theropod features. I dont think any scientist denies this. But feathers are just one piece, the point is that, they are found back to back in the succession, just as DNA relatedness demonstrates, and they depict a succession.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thank you, and I wouldn't disagree that the are general patterns that can be seen in the geologic column.

Well, you must have your blinders on then.

But, as far as I am aware, you aren't able to read a geologic map, so im not sure that you would be able to tell heads from tails of a succession, even if it were in front of you.

We have this well understood, down to specifications of grain size, locations of aquifers and resources, down to fossil localities, rock textures, densities, blow counts, radioactive material and more.

How do you think we drill for oil? We dont just pick a random spot and just start drilling 10,000 feet down. No, We know where the layers are, and we can see that they are laterally continuous. Its how we've fueled the current natural gas boom of America. We arent just randomly poking holes in the ground without knowledge of the geologic column.

The layers are there, whether you believe they are, or not. And we can see them continuing laterally, around the world. To the extent that we can identify layers all the way around the globe.

And no, none of this is based on radioactive dating. There is nothing in the above diagram about radioactive dating. Its all about correlation of features.

Notice how none of the above geologic columns are actually complete. However, even incomplete sections can be correlated from one location to the next.

 

[Job 33:6]

And we see that these layers are laterally continuous across entire continents. South America looks like it would fit like a puzzle piece right up against Africa. Thats because they were once together, and the rocks are the same. And these layers are not only the same between these two continents, theyre the same between North american and Europe as well, and Australia and Antarctica and more.

This same column posted above, exists across the globe. Its not always 100% there in every place, at maximum thickness. But its certainly there, and its clear as day for those of us capable of reading the rocks.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thank you, and I wouldn't disagree that the are general patterns that can be seen in the geologic column. As Dr. Kurt Wise pointed out in the video that Bible Research Tools attached in a post, the order (spatial sequence) of fossils predicted by evolution generally does not fit well for animals; however, does fit well with for plants. Another mechanism that can produce the order seen of plants is if God created plants starting in marine environments and worked inward towards more terrestrial environments, hence Wise's theory of a floating forest.

Whether you agree with Kurt Wise or not is irrelevant. What is relevant and is really the central issue, is that one can only believe the earth is billions of years old and dinosaurs lived millions of years ago if one ignores relevant evidence. Both special and general revelation are pointing to a different story than the one told by evolution. For what benefit are you hoping to gain, by holding onto the old-age evolutionary paradigm as it unravels? Is there some fear that you will no longer be relevant within the field of geology or that your work will no longer be seen as valuable? I'm not sure and only you can answer that, but I do wonder what your theory would be that explains the geologic column AND explains soft tissue, AND explains written records and renderings of dinosaurs as drawn by humans. Either intelligent humans have been around for 65+Ma or dinosaurs aren't that old... and so the conventional dating scale needs to be reevaluated. Without doing any research, or having a degree in Geology, I believe the answer is found in God's word, but can you "see" the evidence of what has already been revealed to you?

The blood vessel comment really isnt a legitimate argument. Even the researchers who worked with the T-rex fossils were clear that there were treatment processes used on the bone.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

9:00 minutes in ^^

The woman actually burned away all the minerals that had constructed themselves throughout the bone.

Notice how nobody hid the T-rex bones, the articles were peer reviewed by other scientists and were still published. Contrary to these ideas that people are hiding bizarre fossils in their basements in some giant conspiracy.

The reality is, if dinosaurs were really alive in the time of noah (just a few thousand years ago), then all fossils ought to still have some DNA and all fossils ought to have soft tissue. We shouldnt be looking toward some sort of specially treated, acid burned, one in a million bone for answers. Really, if all life was around just a few thousand years ago, minerals shouldnt even be precipitated through all of these fossils so thoroughly.

Maybe we can read about this together.

Anyway...you said

"fossils predicted by evolution generally does not fit well for animals"

What do you mean by this? A dolphin is a mammal, it breathes air, yet lives in the ocean. Evolution would predict that such an animal must have come from land, and so the succession demonstrates it as such. Land animals are visible after the devonian, only fish before the devonian. Evolution would predict tetrapod/amphibian/lobed fish like fossils in the mid to late devonian. That is precisely where they are. They arent in the cambrian or ordovician or silurian or triassic, jurassic, cretaceous, or anywhere in the cenozoic.

There are three simple examples of how the fossil succession is precisely what evolution would predict.

 

[NobleMouse]

But, that would be tantamount to putting the Nephilim on the ark to save them,too. Makes no sense .. since the flood was given to eradicate such alleged and real life.

Wasn't it only Noah and his 3 sons, and their wives whom were found righteous in God's eyes though? The Nephilim were wicked and not to be included on the list of passengers aboard the ark, right? Do you believe dinosaurs were also wicked in the sight of God and not included in the kinds to be brought on board the ark?

 

[OSAS 101]

Is there are proof of either?

Ask a cockroach.
He's been around since the beginning.

 

[GenemZ]

Wasn't it only Noah and his 3 sons, and their wives whom were found righteous in God's eyes though? The Nephilim were wicked and not to be included on the list of passengers aboard the ark, right? Do you believe dinosaurs were also wicked in the sight of God and not included in the kinds to be brought on board the ark?

Dinosaurs were supposed to be the result of angelic tampering. Remember? That is how some here read it.

 

[GenemZ]

Ask a cockroach.
He's been around since the beginning.

That is because cockroaches are the animal kingdom's news media.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Now, genez has proposed the possibility that demons have informed humans of these creatures... so that's one idea is still on the table. That could explain how dinosaurs could have come to be depicted in art and in written records.

Good point. The demons mentioned in the gospels -- those confronted by the Lord Jesus -- are depicted in extra-biblical literature as the disembodied spirits of the pre-flood giants, who were the children of apostate heavenly angels and earthly women:

"And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men, (and) from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; (they shall be evil spirits on earth, and) evil spirits shall they be called. (As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.) And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, (but nevertheless hunger) and thirst, and cause offences. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded (from them)." -- Enoc 15:8-12 KJV​

"And we were left, I and you, my sons, and everything that entered with us into the ark, and behold I see your works before me that ye do not walk in righteousness: for in the path of destruction ye have begun to walk, and ye are parting one from another, and are envious one of another, and (so it comes) that ye are not in harmony, my sons, each with his brother. For I see, and behold the demons have begun (their) seductions against you and against your children and now I fear on your behalf, that after my death ye will shed the blood of men upon the earth, and that ye, too, will be destroyed from the face of the earth." -- Jubl 7:26-27 KJV​

For what benefit are you hoping to gain, by holding onto the old-age evolutionary paradigm as it unravels? Is there some fear that you will no longer be relevant within the field of geology or that your work will no longer be seen as valuable?

There is no doubt that there is tremendous pressure on scientists, book publishers, and even politicians and their allies in the media industry, to maintain the myth of evolutionism.

Dan

 

[4x4toy]

UC Berkley Jonathan Wells knows what he doesn't know

 

[4x4toy]

The blood vessel comment really isnt a legitimate argument. Even the researchers who worked with the T-rex fossils were clear that there were treatment processes used on the bone.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

9:00 minutes in ^^

The woman actually burned away all the minerals that had constructed themselves throughout the bone.

Notice how nobody hid the T-rex bones, the articles were peer reviewed by other scientists and were still published. Contrary to these ideas that people are hiding bizarre fossils in their basements in some giant conspiracy.

The reality is, if dinosaurs were really alive in the time of noah (just a few thousand years ago), then all fossils ought to still have some DNA and all fossils ought to have soft tissue. We shouldnt be looking toward some sort of specially treated, acid burned, one in a million bone for answers. Really, if all life was around just a few thousand years ago, minerals shouldnt even be precipitated through all of these fossils so thoroughly.

Maybe we can read about this together.

Anyway...you said

"fossils predicted by evolution generally does not fit well for animals"

What do you mean by this? A dolphin is a mammal, it breathes air, yet lives in the ocean. Evolution would predict that such an animal must have come from land, and so the succession demonstrates it as such. Land animals are visible after the devonian, only fish before the devonian. Evolution would predict tetrapod/amphibian/lobed fish like fossils in the mid to late devonian. That is precisely where they are. They arent in the cambrian or ordovician or silurian or triassic, jurassic, cretaceous, or anywhere in the cenozoic.

There are three simple examples of how the fossil succession is precisely what evolution would predict.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I gave 3 examples of genetic relatedness matching up with the fossil succession. None were responded to.

Ill just re-post, because the youtube video didnt address any of this.

hy is it that DNA relatedness matches the phylogeny of the fossil succession?


For example,

That scheme required a vivid imagination. You don't really believe that, do you?

A good rule of thumb is, never trust a chart drawn up by an evolutionist.

Hippos share more similarities in their DNA with whales than they do with other odd toed ungulates such as rhinos and pigs.

Hippos? LOL! The first animal in Whale evolution is like the so-called "antichrist". If you don't like who it is, wait a month or two until another pop's up.

So why is it that this coincidence exists, in which whale-like, hippo-like animals exist in the fossil record at more recent times than morphologically similar ungulates?

If you want to discuss "coincidences", let us discuss the observation that everything appears designed, or "put up".

Why couldnt the indohyus be found with the rhinos? hy was it found with the whales?

Let me guess: because they were not fossilized at the same time, or in the same location, as rhinos?

Pre historic whales look a lot like fish, but of course, pre historic whales do not appear until after whale-like mammals appear in the fossil succession.

You are begging . . .

Example number two,

Why must the fish and amphibian fossils be found together? Why the coincidence that we find fish-like amphibians? Why not find amphibians after the appearance of reptiles? Same with birds and mammals.

Why are there not a gazillion transitional fossils?

Why must their fossil order, match their DNA order?

Why are there no transitional fossils?

Example number 3,

Therapsides are found after synapsids. Never the other way around. Mammal like reptiles have always been found, originating before reptile like mammals. And yet, its not a question about warm or cold blood, as cold blooded dinosaurs post date both, as do warm blooded mammals.

What does that prove? Where are the tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils necessary to transform, say, a land animal to a whale? Even Darwin recognized the importance of those missing fossils. Why not you?

So to turn back to the original question. How is it that a global flood would sort animals in the earth based on genetic relatedness?

I doubt you have considered all the alternatives. Dr. Wise states the fossil record is consistent with flood geology. And some very talented geneticists have demonstrated the DNA record points to all modern humans descending from a single couple about 4,000 years ago.

Dan

 

[GenemZ]

Good point. The demons mentioned in the gospels -- those confronted by the Lord Jesus -- are depicted in extra-biblical literature as the disembodied spirits of the pre-flood giants, who were the children of apostate heavenly angels and earthly women:

"And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men, (and) from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; (they shall be evil spirits on earth, and) evil spirits shall they be called. (As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.) And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, (but nevertheless hunger) and thirst, and cause offences. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded (from them)." -- Enoc 15:8-12 KJV​

"And we were left, I and you, my sons, and everything that entered with us into the ark, and behold I see your works before me that ye do not walk in righteousness: for in the path of destruction ye have begun to walk, and ye are parting one from another, and are envious one of another, and (so it comes) that ye are not in harmony, my sons, each with his brother. For I see, and behold the demons have begun (their) seductions against you and against your children and now I fear on your behalf, that after my death ye will shed the blood of men upon the earth, and that ye, too, will be destroyed from the face of the earth." -- Jubl 7:26-27 KJV​

There is no doubt that there is tremendous pressure on scientists, book publishers, and even politicians and their allies in the media industry, to maintain the myth of evolutionism.

Dan

The book of Enoch was commentary based upon Biblical understanding of the Jews at that time. It was not divinely inspired. The Jews understood (because they had no problem with understanding Hebrew of the Bible) that the Nephilim were the hybridization of women and angels. Enoch simply puts it into words that spell it out. To us who read obscuring translations? Enoch seems like new news to us.

 

[Job 33:6]

You guys must have whole servers full of YouTube videos.

@NobleMouse , my career doesn't depend on my understanding of the theory, nor my support of it. Fossil related research is something I do outside of my career.

Really, the career comes from the applicable values of understanding the theory, in part.

For example, natural gas drillers use the fossil succession to define geologic localities based on index fossils. The practical applicability finances the education, and the education benefits the company, which then further financed the education. Another example, an understanding of the subsurface allows us to install gas Wells and monitoring Wells in subsurface aquifers. Geochemical qualities of groundwater and localities of resources such as copper ore, benefits from our understanding of the succession and the geologic column.

So its not that I'm scared of the truth and have to hide my secret fossils or hide things that I find. The truth is that, because what I am saying is true, I can use these truths to gather resources so that your house can be heated in the winter, and so that your water can be clean when you go to drink it. And so your computer and cell phone has the precious metals it needs to function.

And people who, deny geology as a whole, and have no understanding of the geologic column or fossil succession, are unable to do these things.

 

[Job 33:6]

That scheme required a vivid imagination. You don't really believe that, do you?

A good rule of thumb is, never trust a chart drawn up by an evolutionist.



Hippos? LOL! The first animal in Whale evolution is like the so-called "antichrist". If you don't like who it is, wait a month or two until another pop's up.



If you want to discuss "coincidences", let us discuss the observation that everything appears designed, or "put up".



Let me guess: because they were not fossilized at the same time, or in the same location, as rhinos?



You are begging . . .



Why are there not a gazillion transitional fossils?



Why are there no transitional fossils?



What does that prove? Where are the tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils necessary to transform, say, a land animal to a whale? Even Darwin recognized the importance of those missing fossils. Why not you?



I doubt you have considered all the alternatives. Dr. Wise states the fossil record is consistent with flood geology. And some very talented geneticists have demonstrated the DNA record points to all modern humans descending from a single couple about 4,000 years ago.

Dan

You clearly don't have a real response to my words. So, I'll let you go now. The best responses I've gotten thus far is "you should get out more" and "The first animal in Whale evolution is like the so-called "antichrist"".

This is just meaningless jabber^.

Ill let you have the final word if you would like.

 

[NobleMouse]

The blood vessel comment really isnt a legitimate argument. Even the researchers who worked with the T-rex fossils were clear that there were treatment processes used on the bone.

The woman actually burned away all the minerals that had constructed themselves throughout the bone.

Thank you for the video link, this was interesting to watch. Is this intended to negate the Bible, written records, soft tissue, DNA, etc...?

Notice how nobody hid the T-rex bones, the articles were peer reviewed by other scientists and were still published. Contrary to these ideas that people are hiding bizarre fossils in their basements in some giant conspiracy.

Dwelling on conspiracy theories, sequence of layers, superposition, etc... is minutia and 'majoring in the minors' as they say... the central issue remains that the conventional theory does not fit all the evidence and the most viable theory that fits all known evidence is based off of the Bible. For you, specifically, why is this then rejected? We'll see how many time I have to keep bringing this up?

The reality is, if dinosaurs were really alive in the time of noah (just a few thousand years ago), then all fossils ought to still have some DNA and all fossils ought to have soft tissue. We shouldnt be looking toward some sort of specially treated, acid burned, one in a million bone for answers. Really, if all life was around just a few thousand years ago, minerals shouldnt even be precipitated through all of these fossils so thoroughly.

Maybe we can read about this together.

The solution to this is simple. DNA, soft tissue, etc... should not generally remain for even thousands of years either, hence why it is not found in "all fossils" that are just thousands of years old. There is no scientific support that gives rise for believing such material can be preserved for literally more than 65 million of years - that's like expecting soft tissue to remain for 23,725,000,000+ days - will never happen, ever. Further there is no scientific support that minerals shouldn't have precipitated through fossils as much as they have over just thousands of years... fossils have been shown to form in just 40 years... it's not a factor of time, it's a factor of conditions - you know that.

Anyway...you said

"fossils predicted by evolution generally does not fit well for animals"

What do you mean by this?

See embedded originally shared video by Bible Research Tools below from time 30:00 to 36:00. Dr Kurt Wise explains that the order of 1st appearance of life, as predicted by evolution (the evolutionary tree), does not follow the order of actual 1st appearance as seen in the fossil record. And, how often does this not align? 95% of the time (put another way, the order predicted by evolution tracks with the actual order in the fossil record... only 5% of the time - and the 5% it does track with what evolution would predict, also fits what would be predicted by the flood model)... again, scientists like Kurt Wise would not believe in biblical creation if there was no evidence for it:

A dolphin is a mammal, it breathes air, yet lives in the ocean. Evolution would predict that such an animal must have come from land, and so the succession demonstrates it as such. Land animals are visible after the devonian, only fish before the devonian. Evolution would predict tetrapod/amphibian/lobed fish like fossils in the mid to late devonian. That is precisely where they are. They arent in the cambrian or ordovician or silurian or triassic, jurassic, cretaceous, or anywhere in the cenozoic.

There are three simple examples of how the fossil succession is precisely what evolution would predict.

Why are we talking about dolphins now, what's the porpoise of that? Is the implication here that if dolphin fossils were found in these other layers that you would finally believe God's word? I'm going to make a 'prediction' here: the answer is "no". We just keep delving into the weeds and dodging the central issue. I am not sure why, but do wish I was of more help in showing that God's word is trustworthy as it relates to the events of earth's past. My apologies if I've steered the discussion away from you being able to see God's word is true.

 

[NobleMouse]

You guys must have whole servers full of YouTube videos.

@NobleMouse , my career doesn't depend on my understanding of the theory, nor my support of it. Fossil related research is something I do outside of my career.

Really, the career comes from the applicable values of understanding the theory, in part.

For example, natural gas drillers use the fossil succession to define geologic localities based on index fossils. The practical applicability finances the education, and the education benefits the company, which then further financed the education. Another example, an understanding of the subsurface allows us to install gas Wells and monitoring Wells in subsurface aquifers. Geochemical qualities of groundwater and localities of resources such as copper ore, benefits from our understanding of the succession and the geologic column.

Good to know and I'm glad you do not receive pressure as some scientists do to ensure the continuity of the evolutionary story. Where you, as a geologist, create value then has nothing to do with whether you believe things take millions/billions of years to form, right?

So its not that I'm scared of the truth and have to hide my secret fossils or hide things that I find. The truth is that, because what I am saying is true, I can use these truths to gather resources so that your house can be heated in the winter, and so that your water can be clean when you go to drink it. And so your computer and cell phone has the precious metals it needs to function.

What you are saying about geological ages and evolution is not supportably true... whether we're talking about axioms of uniformitarian geological principles, assumptions about whether a system is closed, rate of decay is constant, starting number of daughter atoms is known, a bias towards an evolutionary paradigm exists when interpreting fossils, etc... Ironically, creationist geologists also know where to find natural gas, clean drinking water, and precious metals. How are you connecting these abilities to your belief that the earth is billions of years old and evolution is true?

And people who, deny geology as a whole, and have no understanding of the geologic column or fossil succession, are unable to do these things.

Do you believe then, by extension, for example, Dr Andrew Snelling and Dr Kurt Wise have no understanding of the geologic column or fossil succession, and are unable to do these things? Such is a logical fallacy.

 

[Job 33:6]

Dwelling on conspiracy theories, sequence of layers, superposition, etc... is minutia and 'majoring in the minors' as they say... the central issue remains that the conventional theory does not fit all the evidence and the most viable theory that fits all known evidence is based off of the Bible. For you, specifically, why is this then rejected? We'll see how many time I have to keep bringing this up?

To this day, you have no provided valid reasons to justify your position. Which is why I and, most others do not bother with it.

The solution to this is simple. DNA, soft tissue, etc... should not generally remain for even thousands of years either, hence why it is not found in "all fossils" that are just thousands of years old. There is no scientific support that gives rise for believing such material can be preserved for literally more than 65 million of years - that's like expecting soft tissue to remain for 23,725,000,000+ days - will never happen, ever. Further there is no scientific support that minerals shouldn't have precipitated through fossils as much as they have over just thousands of years... fossils have been shown to form in just 40 years... it's not a factor of time, it's a factor of conditions - you know that.

While it isnt conventional wisdom that soft tissue could last millions of years when captured within the crystal lattice of a mineral...it isnt something that I would say is necessarily impossible.

In fact i believe there are perhaps other cases, despite it being rare.

So, from an evolutionary standpoint, this isnt necessarily an issue. Unless you are aware of some sort of research that states rates at which tissue disintegrates after rapid burial. Which really, we have specimen such as the whooly mammoths that have been frozen for thousands of years and they still have soft tissue. So the question becomes, how long can soft tissue last if its protected?

On the other hand, if these animals were all just a few thousand years old, you would think that perhaps 100% of them would all have soft tissue, as opposed to having minerals precipitated through the pores of their bones.

See embedded originally shared video by Bible Research Tools below from time 30:00 to 36:00. Dr Kurt Wise explains that the order of 1st appearance of life, as predicted by evolution (the evolutionary tree), does not follow the order of actual 1st appearance as seen in the fossil record. And, how often does this not align? 95% of the time (put another way, the order predicted by evolution tracks with the actual order in the fossil record... only 5% of the time - and the 5% it does track with what evolution would predict, also fits what would be predicted by the flood model)... again, scientists like Kurt Wise would not believe in biblical creation if there was no evidence for it:

Why are we talking about dolphins now, what's the porpoise of that? Is the implication here that if dolphin fossils were found in these other layers that you would finally believe God's word? I'm going to make a 'prediction' here: the answer is "no". We just keep delving into the weeds and dodging the central issue. I am not sure why, but do wish I was of more help in showing that God's word is trustworthy as it relates to the events of earth's past. My apologies if I've steered the discussion away from you being able to see God's word is true.

I must have missed the part where Mr.Wise demonstrated that the succession miss aligns with predictions of the theory. I'll watch it again.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, for his first point at 31 minutes, he's talking about fossils being observed in a sort of stasis through layers, as opposed to transitioning.

 

[NobleMouse]

You clearly don't have a real response to my words. So, I'll let you go now. The best responses I've gotten thus far is "you should get out more" and "The first animal in Whale evolution is like the so-called "antichrist"".

This is just meaningless jabber^.

Ill let you have the final word if you would like.

I'd actually like for you to have the final word by explaining why you continue to reject the flood model when the conventional evolutionary model does not fit the fossil record 95% of the time, cannot explain soft tissue, blood vessels, and DNA found in fossils 65+Ma old, cannot explain human written records of dinosaurs, cannot explain renderings of dinosaurs by humans, and most of all cannot explain references to dinosaurs made in the Bible (Job)?

Face it head on... "I reject the flood model as an explanation for the fossil record, even though the conventional model has been shown inadequate for a number of years and for many reasons, because... _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.

By the way, my similar statement to what I'm asking for is more or less what I've typed above, "I reject the conventional model because first and foremost I have faith that God's word is true on all matters it discusses, including creation and the events leading up to and after the flood. Aside from that, "the conventional evolutionary model does not fit the fossil record 95%..." For me, that is, in short, why I reject the conventional model.

I'm not here to judge you on this, there is no wrong answer and as much as I'd like you to be confident and trust that God's word is true on this, as I stated some posts back, I know that you and my other TE brothers and sisters here love the Lord as much as any biblical creationist. There is no answer you could give that would cause me to no longer see you as my brother in Christ.

God bless!