The Fossil Record: Darwin's Disaster

[Cantuar]

World-renown evolutionary scientist Edward O. Wilson, in his book Consilience, candidly admits that science may indeed prove the existence of God some day! A powerful admission, coming from one of the high priests of evolution. Evos on this forum will scream their worn out canard that I'm "taking his words out of context"---so I challenge them to obtain a copy of the book and read it for themselves.

Do you mean this passage:

"On religion I lean toward deism but consider its proof largely a problem in astrophysics. The existence of a cosmological God who created the universe (as envisioned by deism) is possible, and may eventually be settled, perhaps by forms of material evidence not yet imagined. Or the matter may be forever beyond human reach. In contrast, and of far greater importance to humanity, the existence of a biological God, one who directs organic evolution and intervends in human affairs (as envisioned by theism) is increasingly contravened by biology and the brain sciences."

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Joe V.
So far you haven't established squat, 'cuz I'm still waiting for you to provide a better theory.

Joe, a theory on how the fossils formed takes hours to explain completely. It's not something that can be done in one post.

But here, if you hunger so much for an explanation, i'll try to give you a short one. (This isn't my own ideas, but a compilation of different books on Creation.)

1. God created the heaven and the earth. Originally, the earth sat on a straight axis, with little or no inclination (this is supported by various ancient structures for observing the sun, like Stonehenge.) Some believe that an ice canopy also surrounded the earth, holding the atmosphere at a higher pressure. Vegetation was much more abundant and rich, animals were considerably larger, and land covered the majority of the planet's surface. Water was contained by large lakes, rather than oceans, like today.

2. There came a time when the people became very evil and God regretted that He created man. He told Noah to build an ark, as a way to give animals (and any people who believed) salvation. Noah only took land animals with nostrils, which excludes all fish and the most common type of life, insects. When this was done, something triggered the flood. The underground water reserves broke, letting water shoot up through what we see today as the oceanic ridges (down the Atlantic and Pacific, for example). The crust "collapsed" on itself, pushing up mountains and letting underground water come to the surface. Those who believe in the ice canopy also say that the ice broke up and came down to the surface. This would most likely add exessive amounts of water -- enough to cover the earth. Most of the flood water came from underground, not rain.

3. Slowly the waters receeded, uncovering a completely different world. Vegetation wasn't completely enough for the animals, which is why animals became carnivorous. Many times, "fossil graveyards" are found, where many different animals are buried in clumps, probably killed while escaping the water.

Well, that's all, Joe. Tell me what you think...

God bless you, man!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Joe V.
So far you haven't established squat, 'cuz I'm still waiting for you to provide a better theory.

- Joe

This is what you evolutionists sound like when you say things like that:

Of course I believe in spontaneous generation, and will continue to do so until someone has proposed a better theory because right now it's the best theory that fits the evidence. One minute you have sugar, and the next you have maggots in the sugar. One can easily extrapolate from that evidence that the maggots spontaneously generated. So anything you say to refute that theory isn't worth squat until you can come up with one that's better.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley


This is what you evolutionists sound like when you say things like that:

Of course I believe in spontaneous generation, and will continue to do so until someone has proposed a better theory because right now it's the best theory that fits the evidence. One minute you have sugar, and the next you have maggots in the sugar. One can easily extrapolate from that evidence that the maggots spontaneously generated. So anything you say to refute that theory isn't worth squat until you can come up with one that's better.

Of course when you hand-wave away all the evidence that evolutionists use to draw their conclusions I can see how it might sound like that.

"Here we have primitive organisms of the Cambrian..." (put fingers in ears for the next 8 hours of lecture) "...and the first Homo sapiens appear about 120K years ago. So it is quite clear that humans and all other life are related by common descent."

So I guess it does sound like your spontaneous generation story. But the problem is not with the evolutionists' argument. The problem is that you have your fingers in your ears for too much of it.

 

[Joe V.]

Well, that's all, Joe. Tell me what you think...

That's not what I learned in my geology class in college. Do creationist teachings even approach the level of detail that a geology course offers from a major college or university? Have you even seen an introductory geology textbook from a typical college, let alone study one?

- Joe

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Quote from Alex: " (this is supported by various ancient structures for observing the sun, like Stonehenge.)"

Say what. Please explain.

 

BTW, that makes a nice story.  But where is the evidence.