The Fossil Record- As God Would Have Made It Through Time

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why are you responding to that post? It was aimed at xianghua, not you.

I’ve made two posts to you, both ignored, containing evidence contrary to your weird claims, you could try addressing those.

In response to what you’ve written above, is the manufacture and development of vehicles analogous to biological reproduction with variation?

No it isn’t and only someone with no understanding of either would suggest it is... or a troll.... or an idiot.

It seems that ignoring posts with evidence is his MO. I've given him three to four links now and he's not commented on a single one.

 

[loveofourlord]

Are you unwilling to face the glaring fact that out of billions of fossils there are no sequence of fossils unearthed showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time?

Are you unwilling to face this face?

How about explaining HOW it doesn't show this, otherwise your just blowing smoke and cant be ignored, what do you think the fossil record would look like if it were to show such thing, saying uhuh over and over again for 11 pages is acting like a 4 year old, you want to be take seriously back up your claim.

 

[theQuincunx5]

The bible isn't too concerned with the first billion or so years of life on earth.

And the part that it does cover appears to be wrong.

Actually two creation events are suggested

Yes, but both appear to be the same creation event just in different format/orders. The two creation events mentioned are both initial creations, not one and then a subsequent one. Just like the two accounts of the Flood of Noah later on in Genesis.

But remember, if we look at the fossil record we see thousands up on thousands upon thousands of new "creations" showing up over the entire course of the earth's history. Which is distinctly NOT in the Bible.

The geologic record reveals a series of ruin/restoration events, each featuring 'new and improved 'creatures that appeared rather suddenly.

But the Bible does NOT show thousands upon thousands of new creations over the entire history of the earth, which is what the fossil record shows.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, but both appear to be the same creation event just in different format/orders. The two creation events mentioned are both initial creations, not one and then a subsequent one. Just like the two accounts of the Flood of Noah later on in Genesis.

The geologic record reveals an old earth, which is in harmony with GAP theory. There are also other biblical suggestions of this as well.

But remember, if we look at the fossil record we see thousands up on thousands upon thousands of new "creations" showing up over the entire course of the earth's history. Which is distinctly NOT in the Bible.

The bible is only concerned with modern man's history.

But the Bible does NOT show thousands upon thousands of new creations over the entire history of the earth, which is what the fossil record shows.

The fossil record indicates that God created many creatures prior to the destruction suggested in Genesis 1:2. They all demonstrate intelligent design. We are left to our own ideas about their purpose and fate. The fossil record is a fact as is an ancient earth, but we draw our own conclusions about it.

 

[theQuincunx5]

The bible is only concerned with modern man's history.

Only parts of which it seems to get correct.

The fossil record indicates that God created many creatures prior to the destruction suggested in Genesis 1:2. They all demonstrate intelligent design. We are left to our own ideas about their purpose and fate. The fossil record is a fact as is an ancient earth, but we draw our own conclusions about it.

I laud you for your Old Earth and Deep Time beliefs. That seems the most rational if one must also account for a Bible which seems to say many incorrect things about the evidence on display. It is an exegesis I can definitely accept given those constraints.

Obviously we differ on the necessity of the second constraint there, but indeed it is a reasonable method to put the two together.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Only parts of which it seems to get correct.



I laud you for your Old Earth and Deep Time beliefs. That seems the most rational if one must also account for a Bible which seems to say many incorrect things about the evidence on display. It is an exegesis I can definitely accept given those constraints.

Obviously we differ on the necessity of the second constraint there, but indeed it is a reasonable method to put the two together.

Genesis, or 'beginnings', sets the stage for what is to follow spiritually. Other scriptures hint at what came before. Science explores the creation as it sees it physically. Christianity explores it for purposeful meaning. The great advantage Christians have is that we can also delve into the natural world whereas science doesn't delve into the supernatural.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Genesis, or 'beginnings', sets the stage for what is to follow spiritually. Other scriptures hint at what came before. Science explores the creation as it sees it physically. Christianity explores it for purposeful meaning. The great advantage Christians have is that we can also delve into the natural world whereas science doesn't delve into the supernatural.

There is no advantage to being able to delve into that which has no necessary or objective reality.

This is like saying that if I were to go on the soccer field I could be the best player in the midfield because I can use my hands!

 

[Ophiolite]

. The great advantage Christians have is that we can also delve into the natural world whereas science doesn't delve into the supernatural.

You have missed the obvious flaw in your argument. You are correct that science does not delve into the supernatural. Neither does, tennis, Thai cooking, chiropody, hydraulics or a thousand other human pursuits. Thus scientists, as opposed to science, are perfectly free to delve into the supernatual, just like Christians. This is evident as many of those scientists are Christians.

In short, you have raised a meaningless objection.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There is no advantage to being able to delve into that which has no necessary or objective reality.

This is like saying that if I were to go on the soccer field I could be the best player in the midfield because I can use my hands!

No need for more objective reality, we get enough of that. Subjective spiritual reality is the domain of the Christian, and is what we need more of, meaning that we should act more on principle than expediency.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You have missed the obvious flaw in your argument. You are correct that science does not delve into the supernatural. Neither does, tennis, Thai cooking, chiropody, hydraulics or a thousand other human pursuits. Thus scientists, as opposed to science, are perfectly free to delve into the supernatual, just like Christians. This is evident as many of those scientists are Christians.

In short, you have raised a meaningless objection.

I limited my comment to science only. And if scientists do delve into spiritual matters they no longer represent science.

 

[Ophiolite]

I limited my comment to science only.

And yet, interestingly, you exclude science from your thinking.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And yet, interestingly, you exclude science from your thinking.

I take science for granted, evolution excepted of course, so I don't think about it much.

 

[Heissonear]

Back to OP.

There are zero transition fossils out of billions of fossils unearthed.

Zero sequences of fossils morphologically changing from one lifeform into another lifeform.

Side tracking this physical fact?

The fossil record proves evolution never happened.

Evolution has zero evidence that it occurred - even once.

The physical evidence to prove evolution scientifically does not exist.

Many evolutionists do not like to face this reality. They chat of other topics are posted.

They try to sweep the fossil record shows zero evidence of evolution under the bus.

Face up. As a past evolutionist I did. I was not a debater or bias. Or side track discussion. It was faced as no evidence to support evolution. A faulty foundation many stand on. And many do not face.

 

[Heissonear]

And yet, interestingly, you exclude science from your thinking.

Do you exclude the science of how there is zero physical evidence for evolution?

The foundation that evolution happened is missing - there are no sequences of fossils unearthed showing morphological changes of one lifeform into another higher lifeform?

No physical evidence to prove evolution scientifically.

The very key foundation of evolution does not exist.

The fossil record proves evolution never happened.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Back to OP.

There are zero transition fossils out of billions of fossils unearthed.

Zero sequences of fossils morphologically changing from one lifeform into another lifeform.

Side tracking this physical fact?

The fossil record proves evolution never happened.

Evolution has zero evidence that it occurred - even once.

The physical evidence to prove evolution scientifically does not exist.

Many evolutionists do not like to face this reality. They chat of other topics are posted.

They try to sweep the fossil record shows zero evidence of evolution under the bus.

Face up. As a past evolutionist I did. I was not a debater or bias. Or side track discussion. It was faced as no evidence to support evolution. A faulty foundation many stand on. And many do not face.

Again: why are you lying?!

 

[Heissonear]

You have missed the obvious flaw in your argument. You are correct that science does not delve into the supernatural. Neither does, tennis, Thai cooking, chiropody, hydraulics or a thousand other human pursuits.

Your post is thread chat and off topic. Presenting matters as a debater and promotion of opinion.

But how about the OP. Have you faced the Reality there is zero physical evidence to support evolution?

That the foundation to prove evolution scientifically is missing?

Are you a scientist, who faces scientific evidence?

Have you faced evolution is based on speculation and not physical evidence?

I was once an evolutionist. And found zero sequences of fossils morphologically changing from one lifeform into another higher lifeform. Zero. All was conjecture. Evolution's foundation was based on speculation.

Do you understand this or do you sweep it under the bus and think evidence is science based and proven?

 

[Heissonear]

Again: why are you lying?!

Show me sequences of fossils morphologically changing from one lifeform into another higher lifeform.

You show you do not follow science based on physical evidence.

Why?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Show me sequences of fossils morphologically changing from one lifeform into another higher lifeform.

You show you do not follow science based on physical evidence.

Why?

The Basics of Evolution

Evolution of the Horse

 

[OldWiseGuy]

http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/evolution/EvolMorphol.htm
Evolution of the Horse

I see different animals in this article, not evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I see different animals in this article, not evolution.

Not my fault you know nothing about what you rail against.