RECORD vs LAYERS

[AV1611VET]

I hear the term "fossil record" a lot, and I submit it is misleading.

A "fossil record" is an interpretation of the "fossil layers" -- written on paper and subject to change.

It is the software* that describes the hardware.

You can change it by simply erasing something and writing in something else.

The fossil LAYERS, on the other hand, are the actual fossils themselves.

Agree or disagree?

* More appropriately: treeware.​

 

[Aaron112]

Agree or disagree?

It looks like you are saying it write right, at least as you have revealed the truth about these things, with your own definitions that , as always, the world/ carnal world/ does not accept --- the carnal fleshly world cannot comprehend the truth nor things spiritual, and does not use the same definitions but rather uses twised 'records' to support complete worldwide systems in total error.

 

[AV1611VET]

It looks like you are saying it write right, at least as you have revealed the truth about these things, with your own definitions that , as always, the world/ carnal world/ does not accept --- the carnal fleshly world cannot comprehend the truth nor things spiritual, and does not use the same definitions but rather uses twised 'records' to support complete worldwide systems in total error.

I agree.

The world has its own list of acceptable terms.

As well as a blacklist of unacceptable terms.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What are the layers if they are not a record of how we find the fossils then?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I hear the term "fossil record" a lot, and I submit it is misleading.

A "fossil record" is an interpretation of the "fossil layers" -- written on paper and subject to change.

It is the software* that describes the hardware.

You can change it by simply erasing something and writing in something else.

The fossil LAYERS, on the other hand, are the actual fossils themselves.

Agree or disagree?

* More appropriately: treeware.​

OK, I think I understand your point now. This issue came up in another thread where you disputed me calling it the fossil record, and preferred to call it fossil layers. I can see now that, if you dispute if those fossils are a record of past Earth history, then using the term "fossil record" seems to assume the very point in contention. So, if you want to discuss the fossils down, then I am now fine with using the term "fossil layers" in such discussions with you.

Would you like to discuss the fossil layers?

I'll begin: I think the fossils in the fossil layers got there through a long process of hundreds of millions of years of Earth history.

Your turn.

 

[eleos1954]

I hear the term "fossil record" a lot, and I submit it is misleading.

A "fossil record" is an interpretation of the "fossil layers" -- written on paper and subject to change.

It is the software* that describes the hardware.

You can change it by simply erasing something and writing in something else.

The fossil LAYERS, on the other hand, are the actual fossils themselves.

Agree or disagree?

* More appropriately: treeware.​

Fact .... there are not any transitional fossils. It is indeed interpretation .... possible theory (based on a lot of assumptions) of how things might have come to be without intelligent design.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fact .... there are not any transitional fossils. It is indeed interpretation .... possible theory (based on a lot of assumptions) of how things might have come to be without intelligent design.

You're right. There aren't any transitional fossils.... because ALL fossils are transitional. And you obviously don't know what a theory is in science.. Hint: it's not what you say it is.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Fact .... there are not any transitional fossils. It is indeed interpretation .... possible theory (based on a lot of assumptions) of how things might have come to be without intelligent design.

Fact. People that tell you that simply ignore the transitional fossils that have been found. Would you like to see the evidence for such fossils?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll begin: I think the fossils in the fossil layers got there through a long process of hundreds of millions of years of Earth history.

Your turn.

I think the fossil layers were layered there by a layer.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think the fossil layers were layered there by a layer.

Why would the layer do that if those layers do not represent a record of the past?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I think the fossil layers were layered there by a layer.

And somehow, conveniently for evolutionists, the layer laid everything out in an order that was consistent with evolution and inconsistent with Genesis. And you think he did all this after the flood, right?

And somehow, in the process of laying them out, it (he?) intermixed igneous rock sills among the layers, which sure look like massive volcanic activity occurred while things were being laid out.

And then it (she?) carefully set the quantities of lead, helium, argon, rubidium, strontium and other elements in place throughout those layers, such that the ages measured by multiple techniques match the obvious order of the layers that had already been determined by looking at them.

And then it (he?) intermixed animal tracks and nests and burrows throughout the layers.

And then it (she?) made some layers look like desert deposits, and some layers look like beach deposits, and some layers look like shallow sea deposits, and some layers look like deep sea deposits.

Who laid this all out? Personally, I think Father Time did it, and it took millions of years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who laid this all out? Personally, I think Father Time did it, and it took millions of years.

Personally, you're wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm just gonna repeat this question since I feel it does bear asking:

Why would the layer do that if those layers do not represent a record of the past?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm just gonna repeat this question since I feel it does bear asking:

Why would the layer do that if those layers do not represent a record of the past?

That's His choice.

If you had even a small bookcase, and the books all fell off their shelves, would you put them back on the shelf in chronological order? order according to size? alphabetical order? haphazardly? by color? by weight? by author? by topic?

However you did it, it was your choice, wasn't it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's His choice.

If you had even a small bookcase, and the books all fell of their shelves, would you put them back on the shelf in chronological order? order according to size? alphabetical order? haphazardly? by color? by weight? by author? by topic?

However you did it, it was your choice, wasn't it?

But why do it in a way that would show the opposite of creation?

 

[Aaron112]

That's His choice.

If you had even a small bookcase, and the books all fell of their shelves, would you put them back on the shelf in chronological order? order according to size? alphabetical order? haphazardly? by color? by weight? by author? by topic?

However you did it, it was your choice, wasn't it?

That sounds similar to the story about a potter, making clay pots. He does what He wants with them, whether throwing one away or smoothing one out or shaping it differently, His Choice.

 

[Aaron112]

But why do it in a way that would show the opposite of creation?

Man's way of thinking is and has been opposite to God's Way of thinking all along.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Man's way of thinking is and has been opposite to God's Way of thinking all along.

But God's creation is will show God's thinking, and in God's thinking, we see a progression in fossil forms from basal fish and lizards towards dinosaurs, then their extinction, then the progression of mammals from lesser forms of mammals to great and varied forms, and then the appearance and evolution of humans.

Why go through all the trouble of sorting fossils like that in a several thousand year old world if it never happened like that? To intentionally be deceitful? To tell a lie?

 

[Aaron112]

But God's creation is will show God's thinking, and in God's thinking, we see a progression in fossil forms from basal fish and lizards towards dinosaurs, then their extinction, then the progression of mammals from lesser forms of mammals to great and varied forms, and then the appearance and evolution of humans.

Why go through all the trouble of sorting fossils like that in a several thousand year old world if it never happened like that? To intentionally be deceitful? To tell a lie?

Think about what you replied to, what mankind has done for thousands of years, exponentially more in the last five years.
Lies, lies, and more lies. Deception and dishonesty everywhere. Why trust man ? There's no good nor honest reason to.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Think about what you replied to, what mankind has done for thousands of years, exponentially more in the last five years.
Lies, lies, and more lies. Deception and dishonesty everywhere. Why trust man ? There's no good nor honest reason to.

Avoiding the topic, plain and simple.
And if I shouldn't trust man, by that logic, then I shouldn't trust AV with his claims about God either.