What you aren't being told about astronomy

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Animals are created on DAY5, then on DAY 6. In each DAY, there must be hours and minutes.
Does that suggest animals are created in sequence?

OK, I violated your first rule. But in science, it is even MORE clear. Not everything popped up on the earth at the same time. So, what is wrong with the sequence?

Because geological evidence does not support the Genesis creation story.
The fossil record does not support the Genesis creation story.

 

[The Cadet]

If you want to learn, it should be your burden, not mine.
If you don't want to learn, we can simply quit right now.

God doesn't exist.
What, you expect me to back that statement up?
If you want to learn, it should be your burden, not mine.
If you don't want to learn, we can simply quit right now.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I told you I am not going to give you citations.

Because you have none. Yo're just blustering and posturing, trying to make it seem like you're some big shot academic when you're just a person on the internet with too much free time and too high an opinion of your own academic abilities.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why should a rabbit showed up at the Cambrian time?

Good job ignoring the response to the question YOU asked.

You asked what it meant to say "a fossil in the wrong place at the wrong time".

I explained what it meant.

If evolution theory is true, then a rabbit in pre-cambrian strata shouldn't be found.

A rabbit in pre-cambrian strata would be a "fossil in the wrong place at the wrong time" in a world where evolution theory is accurate.

You can go ahead and ignore explanation number 2 now.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. The evidences are extremely poor, both in quantity and quality.

The evidence is just as good as the evidence of a DNA paternity test to see if your dad is your actual dad.

And the quantity of that evidence equals the number of individuals of which we can extract DNA. Which is pretty much every living creature as well as plenty of fossils that allow for DNA extraction. In other words: billions.

We don't actually need any fossils to prove this. Fossils are just icing on the cake. They support evolution theory, but they don't prove it.

Genetic evidence proves it.

 

[Hoghead1]

\ Look, Juvenissun, Warden has a valid point. You do set yourself up as a major expert, ne who knows far more than the scientists do. That is very arrogant on your part. If I am going to trust in someone, first think I do is look at their credentials. As you have none, you material goes right in my wastebasket day one.

 

[Hoghead1]

No, you are no teacher, Juvenissun. You do not have the credentials to be a teacher here.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am not telling them anything. I simply question them and they can not answer.

Don't lie. You are not "simply asking questions".

You rather make unsupported claims and put up strawmen - and even continue to hold on to those strawmen even after they have been pointed out to you.

Just like you did a few posts back. We pointed out to you that you can't observe an evolutionary process that is known to take hundreds of thousands of years in a single life time. In the next breath, you are asking for observed instances of exactly that.

Again, excuse me while I laugh my socks off.
Intellectual dishonesty is not going to get you anywhere.

If you actually had something real against evolution theory, you wouldn't require going back to such dishonesty, misrepresentations and strawmen over and over and over again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I said, that is your work.

No juve... the only person who's responsible for providing substantiation of claims is the one making said claims.

Which is you, in this case.

You find one for me, and I can tell you where was it wrong.

Hilarious, once more.

You JUST said in a post that you don't claim to say that biologists are wrong about everything. And now, you literally state that we can provide you with ANY piece of data that is seen as supportive of the theory and that you then will explain why it is wrong. ANY piece of data. Meaning ALL is wrong.

You don't even realize how ultra self-contradicting your statements are, do you?

 

[RickG]

They showed (popped) up. What do you mean by the right time and the right place? How could the time and place be wrong?

So you are saying that the fossil record just popped into place by magic? That's the only way it could happen without evolution.

 

[Hoghead1]

Juvenissun, not all animals are created on days in Genesis. In Gen. 1, yes. In Gen. 2, no, nothing about days there. So we have two contradictory creation accounts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What if the creation took place in time sequence?

Then all life wouldn't fit in a hierarchical pattern that suggests common ancestry.
Unless the "creator" went seriously out of his way to make it look like that. And I mean seriously out of his way. To the point where it can only be done deliberatly to deceive people.

 

[DogmaHunter]

OK, I violated your first rule. But in science, it is even MORE clear. Not everything popped up on the earth at the same time. So, what is wrong with the sequence?

There's nothing wrong with the sequence. That's exactly the point. The sequence fits like a glove in an evolutionary world view. And, more importantly, so does the genetics side of it. It fits a world view where life is the result of common descent with modification.

It doesn't fit a worldview where all species are "created" seperatly, with no traceable hierarchical genetics through common ancestors.

In seperate creations, there is no reason at all to fall in logical hierarchies. In fact, that's the last thing one would expect to find, as it would be terribly inefficient. But it is...

So either evolution took place, or your "creator" went out of his way to deceive us. In which case, it would be reasonable to be deceived by the "false" evidence... since a "creator" so "perfect" as your god is claimed to be, surely would be able to run a "perfect deception".

You can make up stories that are internally consistent all day long, but you can not hide from the data that is out there. At some point, you're going to have to deal with the hierarchical nature of life and how it fits into an evolutionary world view. Well...... if you care about intellectual honesty and integrity, that is...

In evolution however, logical hierarchies are the inevitable outcome. So inevitable that we can safely say that evolution didn't take place if this hierarchy isn't present.

 

[RickG]

No. The evidences are extremely poor, both in quantity and quality.

No juve, you are not only missing the whole point, you are not using science/logic like you agreed to do. You are making unsupported opinions, nothing more. Why are there no Cambrian dinosuars, Jurassic rabbits, Pleistocene trilobites, Devonian birds? For evolution to be false, all life had to be created together and found in all layers of sedimentary strata. Explain with scientific evidence how evolution is false.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I told you I am not going to give you citations.

Because you don't have any........

 

[RickG]

Animals are created on DAY5, then on DAY 6. In each DAY, there must be hours and minutes.
Does that suggest animals are created in sequence?

OK, I violated your first rule.

Then you have lost the debate. No if's and's or but's.

 

[juvenissun]

Because geological evidence does not support the Genesis creation story.
The fossil record does not support the Genesis creation story.

They are arranged in sequence, right? Why is it not supporting what the Bible says?

 

[juvenissun]

God doesn't exist.
What, you expect me to back that statement up?
If you want to learn, it should be your burden, not mine.
If you don't want to learn, we can simply quit right now.

I do can argue that God does exist.

 

[juvenissun]

Because you have none. Yo're just blustering and posturing, trying to make it seem like you're some big shot academic when you're just a person on the internet with too much free time and too high an opinion of your own academic abilities.

Watch it. I could report you on this one.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They are arranged in sequence, right? Why is it not supporting what the Bible says?

The Genesis story says that plants, flowers and grass came before animals. The fossil record does not support that at all.