The Deception of Evolution and the Fossil Sequence

[AV1611VET]

That is not an answer. And please, no blasphemy where you try to compare yourself to Jesus or even some of his apostles.

I'm wondering ... and you don't have to answer this ... but I'm wondering if you think I would have a problem with the following:

1. They find stalactites hanging from a bridge, which date to three years ago.
2. They find stalactites hanging from a bridge, which date to forty million years ago.
3. They find stalactites hanging in a cave, which date to three years ago.
4. They find stalactites hanging in a cave, which date to forty million years ago.

Do you really think I would have a problem with any of those?

 

[RickG]

Absolutely none with your first question.

And absolutely nothing with your second question.

In short, I don't have a problem with them.

Do you?

Then why do you mention them and say "deep time can take a hike"?

 

[RickG]

I'm wondering ... and you don't have to answer this ... but I'm wondering if you think I would have a problem with the following:

1. They find stalactites hanging from a bridge, which date to three years ago.
2. They find stalactites hanging from a bridge, which date to forty million years ago.
3. They find stalactites hanging in a cave, which date to three years ago.
4. They find stalactites hanging in a cave, which date to forty million years ago.

Do you really think I would have a problem with any of those?

1. Quite plausible.
2. Impossible.
3. Quite plausible.
4. No caves are that old so they don't date that far back.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Quite plausible.
2. Impossible.
3. Quite plausible.
4. No caves are that old so they don't date that far back.

1. No problem whatsoever.
2. No problem whatsoever, since the minerals that created the stalactites could be that old.
3. No problem whatsoever.
4. I didn't know that -- thanks for the 411.

 

[Colter]

If the creation story wasn't in the Bible the evidence of an old earth and evolution would be much more acceptable to people of faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm wondering ... and you don't have to answer this ... but I'm wondering if you think I would have a problem with the following:

1. They find stalactites hanging from a bridge, which date to three years ago.
2. They find stalactites hanging from a bridge, which date to forty million years ago.
3. They find stalactites hanging in a cave, which date to three years ago.
4. They find stalactites hanging in a cave, which date to forty million years ago.

Do you really think I would have a problem with any of those?

You do, you try to cover it up with claims that amount to blasphemy, at least according to most of the Christians that I know say it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the creation story wasn't in the Bible the evidence of an old earth and evolution would be much more acceptable to people of faith.

Only if they can't add.

The genealogies would still give them trouble.

 

[RickG]

Only if they can't add.

The genealogies would still give them trouble.

Only if they can't add.

The genealogies would still give them trouble.

It gives you a problem, not most Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do, you try to cover it up with claims that amount to blasphemy, at least according to most of the Christians that I know say it is.

Do most of these Christians you know also believe God's name is YAHWEH?

I'm guessing they do.

And if you think that has nothing to do with what we're talking about, I disagree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do most of these Christians you know also believe God's name is YAHWEH?

I'm guessing they do.

And if you think that has nothing to do with what we're talking about, I disagree.

Who cares? It does not matter if they think his name is Jimmy. And of course as usual you are wrong.

Your own personal belief of who and what God is blasphemous to most Christians. Most Christians do not believe that God can be dishonest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who cares? It does not matter if they think his name is Jimmy.

Okay -- just wondering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay -- just wondering.

But your "Yahweh" comment did remind me of a Bible coder that drove me nuts. He thought that there was some special meaning to YHVH and it was hidden in the Bible, not YHWH which you can also pull out by using the same nonsense, he was stuck on YHVH. Which is rather hilarious since that is merely an attempt at a transliteration from Hebrew to Roman letters and since the pronunciation of words in most languages change what may have been a correct transliteration in the past might not be a correct one today.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

If the creation story wasn't in the Bible the evidence of an old earth and evolution would be much more acceptable to people of faith.

I understood as a Christian, I understand it as an atheist.

 

[lifepsyop]

If the creation story wasn't in the Bible the evidence of an old earth and evolution would be much more acceptable to people of faith.

If the Evolutionary creation story wasn't the only way to "explain" the existence of living things without invoking God, then its proponents would be much more willing to question whether or not the evidence for it is really as ironclad as they believe it is.

 

[The Cadet]

If the Evolutionary creation story wasn't the only way to "explain" the existence of living things without invoking God, then its proponents would be much more willing to question whether or not the evidence for it is really as ironclad as they believe it is.

Um... You do realize that even if we had no idea how life came about or diversified, it would not add one scrap of evidence for the claim "A supernatural being did it", right? "God did it" does not somehow win by default; if it is to be considered as an explanation, there needs to be evidence that it is correct, just like with any other explanation. Saying "we don't have an answer, therefore the answer must be X" is a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[lifepsyop]

Um... You do realize that even if we had no idea how life came about or diversified, it would not add one scrap of evidence for the claim "A supernatural being did it", right? "God did it" does not somehow win by default; if it is to be considered as an explanation, there needs to be evidence that it is correct, just like with any other explanation.

Everyone understands intuitively what it means if Evolution is false. It's obvious. This is why people are so desperate to not have Evolution questioned.

Saying "we don't have an answer, therefore the answer must be X" is a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy.

Right, like "We don't have an answer, therefore the origin of X must be cosmic/stellar/organic/biological evolution"

 

[The Cadet]

Everyone understands intuitively what it means if Evolution is false. It's obvious. This is why people are so desperate to not have Evolution questioned.

Really? Okay, let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the theory of evolution is completely wrong. How does this prove whatever form of creationism you appeal to? Walk me through the logic.

Right, like "We don't have an answer, therefore the origin of X must be cosmic/stellar/organic/biological evolution"

But nobody says that. The current models of cosmology and biology are held because they are evidence-based.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? Okay, let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the theory of evolution is completely wrong. How does this prove whatever form of creationism you appeal to? Walk me through the logic.



But nobody says that. The current models of cosmology and biology are held because they are evidence-based.

And even if the theory of evolution is wrong literalists still have to face the fact that there never was a worldwide flood.

The sad fact is that literalists have to deny all of the sciences

 

[dad]

If the creation story wasn't in the Bible the evidence of an old earth and evolution would be much more acceptable to people of faith.

IN other words if Jesus hadn't told us the truth, we too could be carried away into deception and gross darkness. Thank goodness the Light of the world did come though. No more in darkness.

 

[dad]

And even if the theory of evolution is wrong literalists still have to face the fact that there never was a worldwide flood.

The sad fact is that literalists have to deny all of the sciences

No they don't. You must face the fact you can't prove otherwise and are groping in the dark.