Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[Loudmouth]

So, according to your understanding, what does the Gen 1:21 mean? How can you tell God does not make more fishes on the Day 6?

Why does it matter? No matter what fossils we find in any given sediment you will say that it is consistent with Genesis. You ceded all of your intellecutal capital when you said that creationism was not falsifiable.

 

[Loudmouth]

The scientific method is more than just a hypothesis, you should all know that!!

You are lecturing us on the scientific method? This should be good.

I remember in Chemistry, I always had to write a report using the scientific method. And one important factor besides the hypothesis is OBSERVATION!!

We observe fossils, repeatedly. The measurements we make on fossils can be repeatedly made.

Here is the scientific method:

Step 1: Make an observation
Step 2: Ask a question
Step 3: Formulate a hypothesis
Step 4: Conduct an experiment
Step 5: Analyze data and draw a conclusion

Step 1: We find different types of species in different sediments.

Step 2: What causes fossils to differ from one set of sediments to the next?

Step 3: If life evolved from simple to complex life then we should see a progression of life through several layers as dated by radiometric dating.

Step 4: Collect fossils and arrange them by the radiometric dates of the sediments they were found in.

Step 5: Analyze the fossils to see if they fit the predictions made by the theory of evolution. Make sure the fossils fall into a nested hierarchy. As you move up the geologic column you should see the appearance of new taxa of life that increase in variation as you move from older to newer. You should see transitional forms that have a mosaic of features from species in the past and species that are younger than the transitional form.

There you go. Evolution is scientific.

 

[juvenissun]

The answer is that you CAN use all OR every, by including the qualifier "so far."

However, one does not need to actually write "so far." It can be implied.

If you want to argue that god created more fish on day 6, without mentioning it, that's fine, and a different topic. My complaint about your argument is your claim that every is a subset of all. It's not. You can use either word without changing the meaning of the text.

All right. I will argue with you. Let's change an example:

I have a farm of 50 male sheep and 50 female sheep. I pick 25 female and put them in a pan. Then I take you to the pan and write down the following on a piece of paper:

"Every sheep is female".

Would you understand what do I mean?

According to you, this would be equal to "all sheep are female", which is obviously wrong.

Or, should I wrote "all sheep are female" on the paper? Of course, both are not clear enough. But which one is less ambiguous?

 

[juvenissun]

Why does it matter? No matter what fossils we find in any given sediment you will say that it is consistent with Genesis. You ceded all of your intellecutal capital when you said that creationism was not falsifiable.

It matters a lot. [you do not listen, so I won't explain here]

 

[CabVet]

It matters a lot. [you do not listen, so I won't explain here]

Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

 

[juvenissun]

Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

Why is my answer to you not good enough?

 

[46AND2]

All right. I will argue with you. Let's change an example:

I have a farm of 50 male sheep and 50 female sheep. I pick 25 female and put them in a pan. Then I take you to the pan and write down the following on a piece of paper:

"Every sheep is female".

Would you understand what do I mean?

According to you, this would be equal to "all sheep are female", which is obviously wrong.

Or, should I wrote "all sheep are female" on the paper? Of course, both are not clear enough. But which one is less ambiguous?

I would understand what you meant if you said:

All the sheep (in the pen) are female.

Or, if you said:

Every sheep (in the pen) is female.

Neither is ambiguous at all.

Likewise, I would be equally confused if you claimed:

All sheep are female

Or

Every sheep is female.

It isn't the word all or every that makes anything ambiguous, it is the knowledge or lack of knowledge of what the qualifier is.

You are trying to compare one word, every, where you give the qualifier, with another word, all, where you don't give the qualifier.

This is not an equal comparison, and in fact creates two data sets.

But you could reverse the words, and give all the qualifier and not give it to every, and your meaning would be just as ambiguous.

 

[CabVet]

Why is my answer to you not good enough?

Because you didn't answer the question. Even if "every" means what you say it does (which it clearly doesn't), that still does not explain why the order in which organisms appear in the fossil record is not the same in which they were created.

Just to show you that "every" does not mean what you say it does, God, in Genesis 1 is clearly giving an account of the creation of planet earth. He tells us what he created in day 1, then in day 2, etc, very specifically. There is no reason for him to say this:

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

If he didn't create, you know, every winged fowl on that specific day, he wouldn't say he did. Moreover, why would God give an order of creation if that is not the order in which life was created? Why split it up by days if he kept creating the same things every day? Why be so specific?

But even with all of that, the first organisms created were grass and fruit trees, and those don't appear in the fossil record until much later, after every fish and most land animals. The answer to why that is you have not provided.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

No no. I mean Every and All may mean different thing if they are not qualified.

Hmm, you seem to have backed down from the challenge of producing even a single source that makes the distinction between "ever" and "all" you are scrambling to set up. What a colossal surprise. Your newest example changes nothing. Again they words only mean different things if you qualify them.

And again you have not addressed the fact that your very own Bible says that what you are doing (making stuff up to add to the creation account in Genesis) is an affront to God. Don't you people take that sort of thing pretty seriously?

 

[juvenissun]

Hmm, you seem to have backed down from the challenge of producing even a single source that makes the distinction between "ever" and "all" you are scrambling to set up. What a colossal surprise. Your newest example changes nothing. Again they words only mean different things if you qualify them.

And again you have not addressed the fact that your very own Bible says that what you are doing (making stuff up to add to the creation account in Genesis) is an affront to God. Don't you people take that sort of thing pretty seriously?

Anything must have a start. Nobody said what I say does not mean what I said is wrong. In fact, it would be something worthwhile to be published.

 

[juvenissun]

Because you didn't answer the question. Even if "every" means what you say it does (which it clearly doesn't), that still does not explain why the order in which organisms appear in the fossil record is not the same in which they were created.

Just to show you that "every" does not mean what you say it does, God, in Genesis 1 is clearly giving an account of the creation of planet earth. He tells us what he created in day 1, then in day 2, etc, very specifically. There is no reason for him to say this:

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

If he didn't create, you know, every winged fowl on that specific day, he wouldn't say he did. Moreover, why would God give an order of creation if that is not the order in which life was created? Why split it up by days if he kept creating the same things every day? Why be so specific?

But even with all of that, the first organisms created were grass and fruit trees, and those don't appear in the fossil record until much later, after every fish and most land animals. The answer to why that is you have not provided.

Now you asked many other questions in addition to the one in your OP. I gave specific answer to the OP question. Why is it not good enough? I think it is pretty good and very scientific. In particular, it fits the fossil sequence.

As for your other questions, we may talk about them one at a time later.

 

[juvenissun]

I would understand what you meant if you said:

All the sheep (in the pen) are female.

Or, if you said:

Every sheep (in the pen) is female.

Neither is ambiguous at all.

Likewise, I would be equally confused if you claimed:

All sheep are female

Or

Every sheep is female.

It isn't the word all or every that makes anything ambiguous, it is the knowledge or lack of knowledge of what the qualifier is.

You are trying to compare one word, every, where you give the qualifier, with another word, all, where you don't give the qualifier.

This is not an equal comparison, and in fact creates two data sets.

But you could reverse the words, and give all the qualifier and not give it to every, and your meaning would be just as ambiguous.

No problem on what you said.

The fact is that there is no qualifier used in Genesis 1. So, how would one understand it? In deed it could go either way. But that is all I want, which is: there could be another way to see it. I just want the possibility.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Anything must have a start. Nobody said what I say does not mean what I said is wrong. In fact, it would be something worthwhile to be published.

Okay, you go get your imaginary distinction published and then we will treat it as a valid definition instead of one you're desperately trying to Humpty Dumpty* into existence. You can't justify making up a definition by saying "anything must have a start". That doesn't make it legitimate. But at least you are conceding here that you are the only one who uses your imaginary distinction. And again I notice your reluctance to address the proverb whose directive you are violating so casually:

Do not add to His words, or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar. - Proverbs 30:6

Your persistent avoidance of this point tells me that you realize that you are directly disobeying a biblical directive. The irony is delightful.



*"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." - Lewis Caroll's Through the Looking Glass

 

[Atheos canadensis]

No problem on what you said.

The fact is that there is no qualifier used in Genesis 1. So, how would one understand it? In deed it could go either way. But that is all I want, which is: there could be another way to see it. I just want the possibility.

Interesting. You are claiming that when the Bible uses the word "every" without a qualifier, we are free to interpret it to mean "not all". This is obviously nonsense and against Proverbs 30:6, but let's examine it for a second. Let's look at other places where "every" shows up in the Bible. In Genesis 7:2 when Noah is directed to take " seven pairs of every kind of clean animal", are we free to interpret that to mean he is being directed to take seven pairs of only some of the clean animals? And in Romans 14:11 where it says "every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God," we are free to interpret that to not mean that all knees will bow? Or in Romans 13:1 where it says "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers", we are free to interpret that as something other than all souls are subject to God? I could go on and on. In all these cases are you really going to maintain that "every" is actually a subset rather than a totality due to the lack of qualifier? I think not. And let's look at one more quote, this one from Genesis 6:17...

I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish - Gen 6:17

Is God only planning to destroy a subset of creatures that breath? Note that the same line also says that all life is to be destroyed. IOW, the bible is using "all" and "every" interchangeably in the same context. That destroys the distinction you are trying to set up right there. If there was really a distinction between those two words, it would be apparent here. Instead they are used to mean exactly the same thing. The Bible itself demonstrates the fictitious nature of your distinction.

 

[anyathesword]

Why does it matter? No matter what fossils we find in any given sediment you will say that it is consistent with Genesis. You ceded all of your intellecutal capital when you said that creationism was not falsifiable.

Why are you guys argueing about one word? All fish were created on day 5. That's one physical day. The next day God created animals and humans.

All and every kind of fish was created on day 5.

There's a huge problem. If you want to understand creation, then you can't use the evolutionary time table and the periods, like the devonian WITH the creation story and the flood.

It's not going to work in your head.

If you get the point across that all things were created in one week and the flood came 1656 years after, you will see that things

1. Had time to grow and reproduce and spread out, thats fish, animals and humans.
2. They couldn't have died in the same order they were created.
3. The Flood itself was a huge event that caused a whole heck of damage and change in the plates, eruption, deposition, erosion, etc.
4. Other natural disasters caused more damage and change.

The Devonian period is the narrative of the evolution theory, it has no way of being applied to the creation except if you think of it ib days, not in millions of years

 

[anyathesword]

I don't appreciate your constantly accusing scientists of lying but whatever.

Some do lie or make up stories. I don't make fun of YOU, that is the difference. But whatever, foo

 

[Seipai]

Why are you guys argueing about one word? All fish were created on day 5. That's one physical day. The next day God created animals and humans.

All and every kind of fish was created on day 5.

There's a huge problem. If you want to understand creation, then you can't use the evolutionary time table and the periods, like the devonian WITH the creation story and the flood.

It's not going to work in your head.

If you get the point across that all things were created in one week and the flood came 1656 years after, you will see that things

1. Had time to grow and reproduce and spread out, thats fish, animals and humans.
2. They couldn't have died in the same order they were created.
3. The Flood itself was a huge event that caused a whole heck of damage and change in the plates, eruption, deposition, erosion, etc.
4. Other natural disasters caused more damage and change.

The Devonian period is the narrative of the evolution theory, it has no way of being applied to the creation except if you think of it ib days, not in millions of years

There are many problems with this claim. If fossils are due to the flood then we would find all life mixed together. A year long flood does not have enough time to sort the animals, nor for thousands of feet of coral reefs to grow. Nor for shales that are very slowly deposited and show seasonal variation to be laid down.

Anyone who seriously studies geology sooner or later realizes that there was no flood.

 

[Seipai]

Some do lie or make up stories. I don't make fun of YOU, that is the difference. But whatever, foo

Very very few. I can think of only two examples.

Meanwhile there have been thousands of fraudulent Christians. Form small scale grifters to David Koresh and Bob Jones. If you want to use frauds as evidence of a false belief then Christianity loses big time. It is not a wise course to take.

 

[anyathesword]

Do you at least accept that domesticated dogs came from wolves? And that wolves are around today?

It's the same concept.

“There are now, based on genetic evidence, three alternative hypotheses for the origin of dogs,” said Robert Wayne of the University of California, Los Angeles, a study author

I do not think so, according to this article, dogs appeared before agriculture! And the wolfe that gave RISE to dogs is now extinct!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow!

So wolfes today are NOT the wolfes that turned into dogs...

AND there are 3 HYPOTHESIS on where they came from!!

And you notice in the article they use the words "gradually" then they use "appeared"?

They can never come to a solid conclusion, their evidence is all over the place, they just DON'T know!!!!

 

[Black Akuma]

I do not think so, according to this article,

What article? You didn't post anything.

I do not think so, according to this article, dogs appeared before agriculture! And the wolfe that gave RISE to dogs is now extinct!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow!

If you're talking about this article...

DNA study: Man's best friend may be European in origin

No, it doesn't say that. It suggest that as a possibility, but doesn't state it definitely. You'll also note that there's no question that they came from wolves, even if the sort of wolf they came from is no longer extant. Wolves are still around. Dogs are still around.

And you notice in the article they use the words "gradually" then they use "appeared"?

So?

They can never come to a solid conclusion, their evidence is all over the place, they just DON'T know!!!!

They know quite a few things. They're learning more things and gathering more evidence, refining conclusions. Like you were chattering on about before, that's how the method works.