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

[Brightmoon]

Me too, Although I rather prefer Coverdale, found in the 1928 version of the BCP. In general, my opinion is that if choosing the "correct" translation makes a great deal of difference to you, you are chopping your theology way too fine.

I’ve never really been interested in theology. as I’ve implied before, the Bible is just too confused and I don’t really have the head for accepting all those contradictions.

 

[tas8831]

Ignorance from a debater.

How did you ever get in such a position?

Projecting again. I see.

If you ever stepped foot on the Burlington Formation of Ordovician Period you would realize millions of fossils of principally crinoids, blastoids, and brachiopods. No transition sequence from below, above or inbetween.

You have never done such a thing. Why imply otherwise?

Such is the finds in the rock record.

Such is your unsupported assertion.

No evidence for Genesis, I see.

 

[marineimaging]

What I stand on is that there is only one component we must bring into this matter which affects both circumstances of creation and evolution. That is time. In evolution we must permit time for all of this to occur, in an order, and originating from an accidental incident somewhere in space where the environment was so hostile that we could not hope to survive today. In creation we must have 7 days, construct a livable environment, and begin where an intentional event occurs and love is born to embrace all of mankind for eternity. I choose creation, intention, and love. I choose God the creator, not an accidental incident.

 

[Ophiolite]

Actually, I was talking about how science has opened the door to so much hatred toward people who believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Hatred was part of the human condition long before science existed. One might just as easily - and wrongly - claim that religion was the source of hate. There's plenty of evidence for that, it's just the evidence is misinterpreted.

There is no doubt that some use science to try to disprove God, or to justify condemnation of those of faith. Such individuals are corrupting science. Science, properly applied, is objective and evidence based. Religion, properly applied, is tolerant and faith based. They occupy different realms and can, with minimal effort, but much integrity, happily co-exist.

 

[marineimaging]

Hatred was part of the human condition long before science existed. One might just as easily - and wrongly - claim that religion was the source of hate. There's plenty of evidence for that, it's just the evidence is misinterpreted.

There is no doubt that some use science to try to disprove God, or to justify condemnation of those of faith. Such individuals are corrupting science. Science, properly applied, is objective and evidence based. Religion, properly applied, is tolerant and faith based. They occupy different realms and can, with minimal effort, but much integrity, happily co-exist.

What I am referring to is those who angrily and vehemently beat down (metaphorically speaking) Christians because they believe in Creation and God. You are right though. Hate has existed in one form or another since Cain and Able.

 

[Ophiolite]

What I am referring to is those who angrily and vehemently beat down (metaphorically speaking) Christians because they believe in Creation and God. You are right though. Hate has existed in one form or another since Cain and Able.

I will certainly plead guilty to angrily* attacking Creationists who deny the evidence for an old Earth and for evolution. I have no issue whatsoever with Christians who declare "I am confident through my faith that the Earth is young and that evolution did not occur. I choose to disregard the science." However, I have major issues with those that pretend/argue that the science is false and do so with scant knowledge of what they are denying.


* I do not seek to justify the anger, which arises out of frustration.

 

[Astrophile]

If you ever stepped foot on the Burlington Formation of Ordovician Period you would realize millions of fossils of principally crinoids, blastoids, and brachiopods. No transition sequence from below, above or inbetween.

According to http://www.lakeneosho.org/Miss26.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_Limestone, the Burlington Formation was deposited during the Mississippian period, not the Ordovician. Are you sure that you are a stratigrapher?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is fact which has given Evolutions a black eye - out of billions of fossils inspected and documented there is not one single sequence/succession that shows Evolution by the fossil record.

Not one sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform.

Again, not one evidence has been found.

What the fossil record does show is how God over time would have made Kinds of lifeforms. The fossil record proves this - since there is not one case of displaying by physical remains of postulated evolution of life forms.

Again, out of billions of fossils not one sequence showing hard physical fact of morphological change of one lifeform changing into another lifeform.

This is called no foundation for Evolution.

The fossil record instead has tantamount evidence in how God would have developed life over time. And their remains we would have physical evidence to display before all.

It is time for bias debaters and believers in Evolution to face up to the obvious. What the fossil record really shows.

Facts don't matter to evolutionists....

The fact that every fossil type of creature remains the same from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found for that creature doesn't matter. The fact that new forms appear suddenly, fully formed, doesn't matter. The fact we see the same thing today when two different subspecies mate, doesn't matter. If they can't incorrectly call them separate species in the fossil record and in real life, their theory is destroyed. So they have no problems ignoring the facts.

These:

Are all one species. But had we never seen them in real life, but only found their bones in the fossil record, we would list them as separate species and believe an evolutionary history ocurred where one evolved over time into another form......

The theory of evolution is uncorrected error after uncorrected error, mistake in classification after mistake in classification. It is worthless to describe anything.

 

[marineimaging]

I will certainly plead guilty to angrily* attacking Creationists who deny the evidence for an old Earth and for evolution. I have no issue whatsoever with Christians who declare "I am confident through my faith that the Earth is young and that evolution did not occur. I choose to disregard the science." However, I have major issues with those that pretend/argue that the science is false and do so with scant knowledge of what they are denying.


* I do not seek to justify the anger, which arises out of frustration.

Therein lies the problem. Who gave anybody the right to attack anybody for what they believe?

 

[Ophiolite]

Therein lies the problem. Who gave anybody the right to attack anybody for what they believe?

You make an excellent point. I think I mispoke and that's because in writing the passage your refer to some of the frustration that I feel in discussion with evolution deniers and Young Earth Creationists was reawakened. I had said the following:
I will certainly plead guilty to angrily attacking Creationists who deny the evidence for an old Earth and for evolution.

I should have said (since that is what I meant):
I will certainly plead guilty to angrily* attacking the weak arguments and unsupported assertions of Creationists who deny the evidence for an old Earth and for evolution.

I think I have a right and, indeed, a duty to correct flawed arguments and unsupported assertions that are contradicted by bountiful evidence. If those corrections are ignored and the assertions left unsupported, but repeated again and again, then I shall attack those arguments with vigour, present some of the contrary evidence and request a retraction.

It requires constant vigilance to ensure that an attack on a concept does not become an attack on the person who adheres to that concept. It will never be 100% successful. The reverse is also true. Many will see an attack on their aruments and assertions to be a personal attack.

How does all that sit with you?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Therein lies the problem. Who gave anybody the right to attack anybody for what they believe?

That is Evolutionary tactic 101.....

"When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own." - Scott Adams

Rule 101 when confronted with personal attacks. Just realize they don't understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own..... and hence they attack the poster instead of the subject of the post.....

 

[Shemjaza]

That is Evolutionary tactic 101.....

"When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own." - Scott Adams

Rule 101 when confronted with personal attacks. Just realize they don't understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own..... and hence they attack the poster instead of the subject of the post.....

Pointing out that someones point is incorrect or ridiculous is not a personal attack.

 

[marineimaging]

You make an excellent point. I think I mispoke and that's because in writing the passage your refer to some of the frustration that I feel in discussion with evolution deniers and Young Earth Creationists was reawakened. I had said the following:
I will certainly plead guilty to angrily attacking Creationists who deny the evidence for an old Earth and for evolution.

I should have said (since that is what I meant):
I will certainly plead guilty to angrily* attacking the weak arguments and unsupported assertions of Creationists who deny the evidence for an old Earth and for evolution.

I think I have a right and, indeed, a duty to correct flawed arguments and unsupported assertions that are contradicted by bountiful evidence. If those corrections are ignored and the assertions left unsupported, but repeated again and again, then I shall attack those arguments with vigour, present some of the contrary evidence and request a retraction.

It requires constant vigilance to ensure that an attack on a concept does not become an attack on the person who adheres to that concept. It will never be 100% successful. The reverse is also true. Many will see an attack on their aruments and assertions to be a personal attack.

How does all that sit with you?

I understand what you are saying. Here is what I say about it. Evolution does not care if a child is fed or starves. God does. Evolution says that the normal condition of all things are frozen in time and space. Zero. Energy must be motivated. Time must be created. Evolutionary life supposedly began in an environment of immediate extremes, not a vacuum. In a snap pop immediate moment so saying that we can compare the organisms that live at the edge of volcanic vents underwater with the snap, crackle, and pop of a lightening bolt hitting goo in a volcanic molten base..., not happening. Those critters survive in the heat and acidic water after many years of tempering. Not by an immediate, violent event.

God breathed life into Adam out of love. Evolution is fabricated as an alternative by men to defeat the story of creation. I believe in the Biblical account of how we arrived here for several other reasons. Evolution does not feed us or care if we exist or not. To evolution we are not only an accident but also the reason men can propagate evil behavior and call it o.k. I do not think that mental midgets made up the idea of creation. There are way too many benefits to the story of creation for creation to be false. And likewise, evolution does not accomplish what God wants us to be in relation to each other nor to Him. Evolution does not care if we love or hate. Creation calls for all of us to love. Evolution says we arrived here by accident. Creation says we arrived here by the love of God. I choose God and His Love. It is that simple.

 

[Ophiolite]

I understand what you are saying. Here is what I say about it. Evolution does not care if a child is fed or starves. God does. Evolution says that the normal condition of all things are frozen in time and space. Zero. Energy must be motivated. Time must be created. Evolutionary life supposedly began in an environment of immediate extremes, not a vacuum. In a snap pop immediate moment so saying that we can compare the organisms that live at the edge of volcanic vents underwater with the snap, crackle, and pop of a lightening bolt hitting goo in a volcanic molten base..., not happening. Those critters survive in the heat and acidic water after many years of tempering. Not by an immediate, violent event.

God breathed life into Adam out of love. Evolution is fabricated as an alternative by men to defeat the story of creation. I believe in the Biblical account of how we arrived here for several other reasons. Evolution does not feed us or care if we exist or not. To evolution we are not only an accident but also the reason men can propagate evil behavior and call it o.k. I do not think that mental midgets made up the idea of creation. There are way too many benefits to the story of creation for creation to be false. And likewise, evolution does not accomplish what God wants us to be in relation to each other nor to Him. Evolution does not care if we love or hate. Creation calls for all of us to love. Evolution says we arrived here by accident. Creation says we arrived here by the love of God. I choose God and His Love. It is that simple.

Thank you for sharing your beliefs with me. Let me select a handful of points where we depart and clarify my position. Your statements are in blue:

"Evolution does not care if a child is fed or starves."

Very true. Neither does gravity, electromagnetism, redox reactions, etc. But evolution has created a species, humans, who are capable of compassion and love and concern for the welfare of others. In the spirit of full disclosure I should note that I see these same characteristics, in primitive form, in many of our relatives, not just the close ones among the apes.


"In a snap pop immediate moment so saying that we can compare the organisms that live at the edge of volcanic vents underwater with the snap, crackle, and pop of a lightening bolt hitting goo in a volcanic molten base..., not happening."

That's a cartoon image of how life arose. It wasn't an instance. It likely to millions of years for a diveristy of chemical reactions of increasing complexity to advance to a point that we might call it life. Moreover, the origin of life has little bearing on evolution. If it were demonstrated beyond any doubt, for example, that primitive life on Earth had been planted by an alien race, that would have zero effect upon the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis, while obviously related, are also independent.

"Evolution is fabricated as an alternative by men to defeat the story of creation."

Simply no, writ in large, glowing letters. Evolution theory has been developed by a wide range of individuals from the Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel, who laid the foundation of genetics, to the rather unpleasant, militant atheist Richard Dawkins. Amongst this diverse group are many devout Christians who see evolution as the means by which God has implemented his creation. There are also a large number who have no interest in the story of creation, considering it a primitive myth of no relevance to them. They have as much motivation to discredit creation as they have to object to the colour green. Your view on this point is demonstrably wrong.

"To evolution we are not only an accident but also the reason men can propagate evil behavior and call it o.k."

Any person using evolution as an excuse for their behaviour is as nutty as someone who blames gravity for causing the death of someone they pushed of a cliff. If you think otherwise, you aren't thinking deeply enough.

Thank you again for your sincere sharing of your beliefs. I'll close with this thought. If there was a God, why would he leave around a mass of clues pointing to a universe billions of years old and to the emergence of life via evolution, plus give us the brains and curiosity to read those clues, why do all that if they were lies?

 

[Heissonear]

"Evolution is fabricated as an alternative by men to defeat the story of creation."

No ........Evolution theory has been developed by a wide range of individuals from the Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel, who laid the foundation of genetics, ...........................a mass of clues pointing to a universe billions of years old and to the emergence of life via evolution

The process of evolution on Earth started with classroom biological sciences.

Evolution is to account for all of the lifeforms that has come about in the past to the present.

Evolution is suppose to be the mechanism for how the lifeforms in the fossil record came about.

But scientific enquiry of unearthed fossils show evolution never happened.

The fossil record shows evolution is based on conjecture.

Classroom biology and biochemistry about life found in the past are based on conjecture. There is no way around it.

 

[marineimaging]

But evolution has created a species, humans, who are capable of compassion and love and concern for the welfare of others. In the spirit of full disclosure I should note that I see these same characteristics, in primitive form, in many of our relatives, not just the close ones among the apes.

The word "created" in our context means to make something from nothing.

 

[Jimmy D]

But scientific enquiry of unearthed fossils show evolution never happened

But this simply isn’t true.

Firstly, how could fossils show that evolution never occurred?

I suppose that they could located in the wrong chronological order from what we would expect to see if evolution was the case, but that doesn’t happen. In fact the opposite is true, as seen when palaeontologists discovered Tiktaalik.

Possibly if the fossil record showed all the modern species appear suddenly, at exactly the same time, with no similar predecessors you might have a case, but that hasn’t happened either has it, just the opposite.

Secondly, your ‘Scientific inquiry’ in this case is referring to palaeontologists, you know, the people who study this stuff day in, day out, and they feel that the opposite is true, that the fossil record does display utterly convincing evidence for evolution. Do you not know this?

So I have to wonder why you would lie about such a thing?

Can’t you see the irony in the fact that you have to make things up, to try and defend a vague couple of paragraphs in the Old Testament, when one of the clearest instructions to you contained within that collection of books specifically forbids you from bearing false witness?

If you are attempting to make Christianity appear to be the religion of liars and hypocrites you are doing an excellent job. Fortunately there are many honest posters on the forum who demonstrate that this isn’t the case.

 

[dad]

But this simply isn’t true.

Firstly, how could fossils show that evolution never occurred?

I suppose that they could located in the wrong chronological order from what we would expect to see if evolution was the case, but that doesn’t happen. In fact the opposite is true, as seen when palaeontologists discovered Tiktaalik.

Possibly if the fossil record showed all the modern species appear suddenly, at exactly the same time, with no similar predecessors you might have a case, but that hasn’t happened either has it, just the opposite.

Secondly, your ‘Scientific inquiry’ in this case is referring to palaeontologists, you know, the people who study this stuff day in, day out, and they feel that the opposite is true, that the fossil record does display utterly convincing evidence for evolution. Do you not know this?

So I have to wonder why you would lie about such a thing?

Can’t you see the irony in the fact that you have to make things up, to try and defend a vague couple of paragraphs in the Old Testament, when one of the clearest instructions to you contained within that collection of books specifically forbids you from bearing false witness?

If you are attempting to make Christianity appear to be the religion of liars and hypocrites you are doing an excellent job. Fortunately there are many honest posters on the forum who demonstrate that this isn’t the case.

Perhaps he refers to those being showed (by the findings of science) as people willing or able to see.

 

[marineimaging]

But this simply isn’t true.

Firstly, how could fossils show that evolution never occurred?

I suppose that they could located in the wrong chronological order from what we would expect to see if evolution was the case, but that doesn’t happen. In fact the opposite is true, as seen when palaeontologists discovered Tiktaalik.

Possibly if the fossil record showed all the modern species appear suddenly, at exactly the same time, with no similar predecessors you might have a case, but that hasn’t happened either has it, just the opposite.

Secondly, your ‘Scientific inquiry’ in this case is referring to palaeontologists, you know, the people who study this stuff day in, day out, and they feel that the opposite is true, that the fossil record does display utterly convincing evidence for evolution. Do you not know this?

So I have to wonder why you would lie about such a thing?

Can’t you see the irony in the fact that you have to make things up, to try and defend a vague couple of paragraphs in the Old Testament, when one of the clearest instructions to you contained within that collection of books specifically forbids you from bearing false witness?

If you are attempting to make Christianity appear to be the religion of liars and hypocrites you are doing an excellent job. Fortunately there are many honest posters on the forum who demonstrate that this isn’t the case.

One reason I do not believe in evolution is because you can give 10 scientists the same pieces of information in 10 different countries and they will come up with 11 different conclusions. We treat the men of sciences as Gods and God as a liar. I prefer to recount creation as simply the way it happened and engage in understanding and purveying the love of Jesus Christ than in relying on the constant overturning of so called "scientific facts" that men rewrite every 12 years. But to call a man an liar simply because he believes differently than you is the epitome of arrogance, the root of conceit, the dregs of prideful vanity and pompous self-importance. Have some love. We will be proven right soon. Give it time.

 

[marineimaging]

Thank you for sharing your beliefs with me. Let me select a handful of points where we depart and clarify my position. Your statements are in blue:

"Evolution does not care if a child is fed or starves."

Very true. Neither does gravity, electromagnetism, redox reactions, etc. But evolution has created a species, humans, who are capable of compassion and love and concern for the welfare of others. In the spirit of full disclosure I should note that I see these same characteristics, in primitive form, in many of our relatives, not just the close ones among the apes.


"In a snap pop immediate moment so saying that we can compare the organisms that live at the edge of volcanic vents underwater with the snap, crackle, and pop of a lightening bolt hitting goo in a volcanic molten base..., not happening."

That's a cartoon image of how life arose. It wasn't an instance. It likely to millions of years for a diveristy of chemical reactions of increasing complexity to advance to a point that we might call it life. Moreover, the origin of life has little bearing on evolution. If it were demonstrated beyond any doubt, for example, that primitive life on Earth had been planted by an alien race, that would have zero effect upon the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis, while obviously related, are also independent.

"Evolution is fabricated as an alternative by men to defeat the story of creation."

Simply no, writ in large, glowing letters. Evolution theory has been developed by a wide range of individuals from the Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel, who laid the foundation of genetics, to the rather unpleasant, militant atheist Richard Dawkins. Amongst this diverse group are many devout Christians who see evolution as the means by which God has implemented his creation. There are also a large number who have no interest in the story of creation, considering it a primitive myth of no relevance to them. They have as much motivation to discredit creation as they have to object to the colour green. Your view on this point is demonstrably wrong.

"To evolution we are not only an accident but also the reason men can propagate evil behavior and call it o.k."

Any person using evolution as an excuse for their behaviour is as nutty as someone who blames gravity for causing the death of someone they pushed of a cliff. If you think otherwise, you aren't thinking deeply enough.

Thank you again for your sincere sharing of your beliefs. I'll close with this thought. If there was a God, why would he leave around a mass of clues pointing to a universe billions of years old and to the emergence of life via evolution, plus give us the brains and curiosity to read those clues, why do all that if they were lies?

Creation by a loving God is beautiful in every sense. And real to the believer.