What you aren't being told about astronomy

[TLK Valentine]

Created.
Then died off on the earth.

After being spontaneously created over millions of years?

 

[TLK Valentine]

But it is possible. Not any worse than the evolution story.

In your opinion.

 

[juvenissun]

Because we're talking about plants appearing after animals which invalidates the Genesis story!

And I was talking about possible plants created before all animals.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And I was talking about possible plants created before all animals.

Which is something the fossil record, a record of God's creation on Earth, does not support!

 

[RickG]

Why? Could they be created in sequence?

So, then you are saying that the all the life forms found in the fossil record just popped into existence at just the right places and time to mimic evolution? That is not science. In your very own statement you said you would show evolution not to be valid through "science and logic". You have presented neither.

 

[juvenissun]

After being spontaneously created over millions of years?

You are good in thinking.
Yes, we have to twit the timing a little bit.

 

[juvenissun]

Which is something the fossil record, a record of God's creation on Earth, does not support!

Comets support it.

 

[juvenissun]

So, then you are saying that the all the life forms found in the fossil record just popped into existence at just the right places and time to mimic evolution? That is not science. In your very own statement you said you would show evolution not to be valid through "science and logic". You have presented neither.

Creation is not science. Evolution is not either.

 

[RickG]

By creation.
Yes. That is the only way so far.

Two problems there. (1) That is not science and logic as you said you would provide and (2) the bible does not support that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You are good in thinking.

It helps when one of us is.

Yes, we have to twit the timing a little bit.

I assume you mean "tweak," but I won't assume -- problem is that the reality of the fossil record will only allow for so much tweaking... unless, of course, you want to demand a retroactive miracle to make it all fall into place.

Besides, there's really no need to tweak the timing; you could let the evidence speak for itself... unless you already know in advance what you want it to say.

Is that the case, juven? Is there already a conclusion you're trying to reach by any means necessary?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Comets support it.

No it doesn't. How do comets carrying organic matter to Earth support that Biblical claim that plants were created before animals, when the fossil record, the actual record of God's creation of Earth, invalidates that claim?

 

[RickG]

Creation is not science. Evolution is not either.

Evolution is not science? How is it not science? All disciplines of the physical sciences contribute and support to the theory of evolution. How is that not science?

 

[juvenissun]

It helps when one of us is.



I assume you mean "tweak," but I won't assume -- problem is that the reality of the fossil record will only allow for so much tweaking... unless, of course, you want to demand a retroactive miracle to make it all fall into place.

The problem of evolution in fossil sequence is discontinuity. The idea of creation can solve that problem.
The problem of creation in fossil sequence is the timing of extinction. And it does not have to be the problem of creation.

 

[juvenissun]

No it doesn't. How do comets carrying organic matter to Earth support that Biblical claim that plants were created before animals, when the fossil record, the actual record of God's creation of Earth, invalidates that claim?

Where does the organic material in the comet come from?
You said that we do not know.
But the creation story does suggest a reasonable answer. They came from plants.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The problem of evolution in fossil sequence is discontinuity. The idea of creation can solve that problem.

The problem is a minor one; only a couple of anomalies which are easily identifiable. No need for a creation myth.

The problem of creation in fossil sequence is the timing of extinction. And it does not have to be the problem of creation.

That's a pretty big problem, considering that creation has a very explicit explanation for extinction which the fossil record absolutely does not support.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Where does the organic material in the comet come from?
You said that we do not know.
But the creation story does suggest a reasonable answer. They came from plants.

.... Are you sure you're not getting plants and planets mixed up?

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution is not science? How is it not science? All disciplines of the physical sciences contribute and support to the theory of evolution. How is that not science?

The model lacks the support of evidence. So it is only a scientific idea, not a science.

 

[RickG]

The problem of evolution in fossil sequence is discontinuity. The idea of creation can solve that problem.
The problem of creation in fossil sequence is the timing of extinction. And it does not have to be the problem of creation.

Biblical creation is not science. You said you would show evolution invalid through "science and logic". No does the biblical creation support the fossil record. Not in the least.

 

[juvenissun]

The problem is a minor one; only a couple of anomalies which are easily identifiable. No need for a creation myth.

That's a pretty big problem, considering that creation has a very explicit explanation for extinction which the fossil record absolutely does not support.

No. It is actually the most critical problem in evolution.
Do not mix the Noah's Flood in this issue. It does not belong.

 

[juvenissun]

.... Are you sure you're not getting plants and planets mixed up?

Yes, plants. Plants on planets.