Is it a hoax?

[SkyWriting]

The earliest life that we find in the fossil record dates back to the Archean eon I believe (starting around four billion years ago). Do you know what we find in those rocks? Single celled life and nothing else.

Fossils only are formed by hard bone or shell structures.

 

[SkyWriting]

First of all, there was no singular 'group' of specific believers that founded science. The persuit of scientific knowledge grew out of numerous different cultures and beliefs around the world.

None of them secular.

 

[lesliedellow]

Fossils only are formed by hard bone or shell structures.

Fossil Record of the Bacteria

 

[Subduction Zone]

When in a corner, attack the opposing viewpoint. I get that.
Unfortunately for your effort, I'm not arguing Creationism at this time.

I am not "attacking the opposing viewpoint". I am merely pointing out that your beliefs were shown to be wrong a long long time ago.

And how on Earth am I "in a corner"? Please, you really need to work on your posts a bit more. If you want to learn why we know that evolution is how life came to its present state many people here can help you.

 

[pitabread]

Fossils only are formed by hard bone or shell structures.

Trace fossil - Wikipedia

Also, probably also worth a read : Fossil - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, there is.

Okay fine, you are terribly confused. So you are right on that one point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fossils only are formed by hard bone or shell structures.

Umm no, the earliest clear fossils are stromatolites:

Stromatolite - Wikipedia

There are no hard body parts to individual cells. Stromatolites are formed by masses of cells alternatively trapping sediments and growing over them.

 

[tevans9129]

I believe the big guy doesn't take too kindly to bearing false witness either, you should be careful there.

Did you previously agree to a discussion if we both would agree to answer all questions that we may be asked? Yes.

Did you honor your word and answered all questions that I asked you? No.

End of discussion.

 

[tevans9129]

Like the dinosaur fossils God put here to fool us!

Are you saying that God was the one that put the "dinosaur fossils" here? If He did put those fossils here, why and how were they supposed to "fool us"? Do you have evidence that will support your views?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Are you saying that God was the one that put the "dinosaur fossils" here? If He did put those fossils here, why and how were they supposed to "fool us"? Do you have evidence that will support your views?

I was being somewhat tounge in cheek. There are those in the YEC circles who say that God created the world with the appearance of age though, in their view, the world is only 6000 years old.

 

[tevans9129]

I suggest we start with my point about humans and chimpanzees, since it's a pair of species for which we have lots of genetic evidence, and which includes the species most people are really interested in: us.

Did you understand my point about mutations and differences between humans and chimps?

I am ready to address your first post directed to me as soon as you respond to my post #71.

 

[lesliedellow]

Are you saying that God was the one that put the "dinosaur fossils" here? If He did put those fossils here, why and how were they supposed to "fool us"? Do you have evidence that will support your views?

When creationists of previous generations were asked about dinosaur fossils, the reply was either that the Devil put them there to deceive us, or God put them there to test our faith.

Nowadays the story seems to have changed to dinosaurs were contemporaneous with human beings, but died in the Flood. Apparently Noah should have made the Ark a bit bigger.

 

[tevans9129]

Which ones are next then?

Are you open to some speculation? The next very significant one will be the battle of Psalms 83, followed by the battle in Ezekiel 38 & 39, IMO.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am ready to address your first post directed to me as soon as you respond to my post #71.

This is a rather severe problem of yours. When people do not answer your questions in a manner that you approve of you use that as an excuse not to answer questions. You have supported practically none of your beliefs.


Once again, you claimed to value honesty. Yet when people respond to you honestly and as well as they can in response to your very often very poorly formed questions you accuse them of dishonesty or not answering your questions.

It is past time for you to start answering some of the questions asked of you. Do you have any answers? Or are you merely looking for excuses not to answer the questions posted to you?

 

[bhsmte]

This is a rather severe problem of yours. When people do not answer your questions in a manner that you approve of you use that as an excuse not to answer questions. You have supported practically none of your beliefs.


Once again, you claimed to value honesty. Yet when people respond to you honestly and as well as they can in response to your very often very poorly formed questions you accuse them of dishonesty or not answering your questions.

It is past time for you to start answering some of the questions asked of you. Do you have any answers? Or are you merely looking for excuses not to answer the questions posted to you?

I would expect this to continue.

 

[tevans9129]

I was being somewhat tounge in cheek. There are those in the YEC circles who say that God created the world with the appearance of age though, in their view, the world is only 6000 years old.

I would not hold to 6k years but neither would I accept billions of years, unless, someone can provide verifiable evidence of when, how and when space, matter, energy, time and the natural laws came into existence and in what sequence. After years of asking that question, the best I have gotten was, have no idea.

 

[bhsmte]

I would not hold to 6k years but neither would I accept billions of years, unless, someone can provide verifiable evidence of when, how and when space, matter, energy, time and the natural laws came into existence and in what sequence. After years of asking that question, the best I have gotten was, have no idea.

The evidence and answer to that question, is readily available to any person, with any reasonable amount of effort. That is, a person willing to accept well evidenced science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would not hold to 6k years but neither would I accept billions of years, unless, someone can provide verifiable evidence of when, how and when space, matter, energy, time and the natural laws came into existence and in what sequence. After years of asking that question, the best I have gotten was, have no idea.

There is "verifiable evidence". It has been given to you. Can you be specific. What do you want "verifiable evidence" for?

It does not help when you make up your own terms. How about we use "scientific evidence" instead? That is a well defined term. It is all "verifiable". One can go out and independently see if those observations are correct or not.

 

[tevans9129]

"I would expect this to continue."

That is an excellent "expectation" because I would be shocked if anyone has the courage to engage in a serious discussion with the purpose of determining fact from agenda and beliefs. Talking points do not necessarily equate to fact and if one cannot answer all questions asked, then it is very likely they are not as knowledgeable as they would like for other to believe, IMO.

I am willing to answer all questions that you may ask with plausible, verifiable answers and if I do not understand the question, I will ask for clarification or rephrasing and will then answer the question? No excuses, such as it is malformed, it is stupid, it is not relevant, etc. but clear, straightforward answers. I will also address each point that you present, IF, you are willing to reciprocate in like manner, are you? My offer to answer all questions is not unilateral.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"I would expect this to continue."

That is an excellent "expectation" because I would be shocked if anyone has the courage to engage in a serious discussion with the purpose of determining fact from agenda and beliefs. Talking points do not necessarily equate to fact and if one cannot answer all questions asked, then it is very likely they are not as knowledgeable as they would like for other to believe, IMO.

Please, we have tried to engage you in an honest discussion. All you can do in response is to make false claims about others. You have not been given talking points, you have been given evidence that you have no answer to.