Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[EternalDragon]

There are plenty of Christians who don't think Jesus took it as literal history. Are they not Christians?

Perhaps they are still getting into the milk of God's word and not the meat.

"For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matthew 24:38-39).

John 5

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

[Black Akuma]

Perhaps they are still getting into the milk of God's word and not the meat.

I'm sure they'd disagree. At any rate, let's not stray too far from the topic. You're skipping over quite a few posts.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7799202-6/#post64868224

 

[juvenissun]

When you say "for now" that implies that you may eventually have an answer. Do you actually think you will come up with a reason for why the alleged order of creation to no degree conforms to the fossil record or are is it one of those things that you "plan" to get to? Although I am pleased that you were willing to admit that you had no answer instead of avoiding the point or making up nonsense.

the problem remains that the fossil record as a whole doesn't conform to the Bible. The whole thing is a big "I don't know (for now)" for your belief. It doesn't correspond to the order of creation and it certainly doesn't correspond to what we should see if everything were killed by a single relatively short event.

On the contrary, we should say that fossil record as a general DOES conform to the Bible. Yes, I do think the questions I could not answer for now are expected to be resolved (not very hard questions, after all). I am neither a biologist nor a paleontologist. If I were, I believe I definitely would be able to say more about the issue. May be my current question will no longer be a question at all.

Do you know where could be the key point? It is on the nature of the Garden of Eden. If a correct model about that is set, then the fossil questions will be solved.

 

[Jro]

It's weird how evolutionary theory and geology explain the fossil record better than the bible does amirite?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

On the contrary, we should say that fossil record as a general DOES conform to the Bible. Yes, I do think the questions I could not answer for now are expected to be resolved (not very hard questions, after all). I am neither a biologist nor a paleontologist. If I were, I believe I definitely would be able to say more about the issue. May be my current question will no longer be a question at all.

Do you know where could be the key point? It is on the nature of the Garden of Eden. If a correct model about that is set, then the fossil questions will be solved.

Please explain how the fossil record does actually conform to the Bible. It doesn't conform to the order of creation and it certainly doesn't conform to the Flood model. I admit that ED is in even more trouble because he takes it all literally. You've allowed for the fact that the earth is much older than the common YEC, but that still doesn't change the fact that the appearance of species in the fossil record doesn't conform to the order in which they were created in the Bible and conforms or to the mixed pattern we should expect if it had been deposited by the Flood. So please give me a bit more detail on how the fossil record really does fit with the Bible. I would like a lot more detail on how the exact setup of Eden will solve this for you.

And this discrepancy isn't a simple problem for your camp. You have your personal ignorance of biology as an excuse for not being able to refute the point (funny how ignorance of biology and paleontology is a running theme among YECs), but what about the rest of the YECs? None of them have come up with anything either. They recognize that the fossil record doesn't match what the Bible tells them they should see, so they have proffered various excuses like ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting and differential escape abilities. All of these are easily refuted with a fairly minor understanding of the fossil record's composition. So it's not just your unanswerable question for you personally; your entire camp has not yet managed it.

 

[juvenissun]

Please explain how the fossil record does actually conform to the Bible.

I have told you that. Fishes are created earlier than land animals.

Is that a super achievement by Moses? Why don't you give him credit on this wonderful wisdom?

What else does the Bible talk about fossils? I can not find any. So, what is your objection? You questioned what the Bible does not suggest.

May be you should question if it is true that plants are created earlier then life in the water. Would you have this idea if you were Moses?

 

[Black Akuma]

Fishes are created earlier than land animals.

Fish aren't the first thing alive, though.

 

[Black Akuma]

Fishes are created earlier than land animals.

Fish aren't the first thing alive, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are plenty of Christians who don't think Jesus took it as literal history. Are they not Christians?

What did Jesus call them in Luke 24?

Do you have the guts to anwser that?

 

[Black Akuma]

What did Jesus call them in Luke 24?

Do you have the guts to anwser that?

Don't know or care. Start a new topic about it, if you want.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't know or care. Start a new topic about it, if you want.

You cared enought to ask, didn't you?

Then when I showed you where to find what Jesus would call them, you want me to 'start a new topic about it.'

Interesting.

 

[Black Akuma]

What did Jesus call them in Luke 24?

Do you have the guts to anwser that?

You cared enought to ask, didn't you?

Then when I showed you where to find what Jesus would call them, you want me to 'start a new topic about it.'

Interesting.

I don't have any interest in derailing the topic any further, no. ED said something, I responded, he responded, and then I responded with the hope of avoiding a complete derailment.

If you want to talk about that start another topic. Im not biting anymore than I already have. If you have nothing of value to add, you can kindly take the Tyson approach.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't have any interest in derailing the topic any further, no.

How convenient.

ED said something, I responded, he responded, and then I responded with the hope of avoiding a complete derailment.

Well then far be it from me to derail this thread like you almost did.

We both know our limitations, don't we?

I too shall bow out and allow the thread to return to topic.

 

[Jro]

I don't have any interest in derailing the topic any further, no. ED said something, I responded, he responded, and then I responded with the hope of avoiding a complete derailment.

If you want to talk about that start another topic. Im not biting anymore than I already have. If you have nothing of value to add, you can kindly take the Tyson approach.

Bite off someone's ear and threaten to eat their family?

 

[AV1611VET]

Bite off someone's ear and threaten to eat their family?

I have no idea what he meant by that, and I just recently watched every single one of Tyson's fights that are on the Internet.

 

[Black Akuma]

I too shall bow out and allow the thread to return to topic.

Don't let the door hit ya where the dog should've bit ya.

Bite off someone's ear and threaten to eat their family?

Pretty much, yeah.

 

[Black Akuma]

I have no idea what he meant by that, and I just recently watched every single one of Tyson's fights that are on the Internet.

Bite me. Take the approach and...bite me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't let the door hit ya where the dog should've bit ya.

... That's pretty funny!

 

[Jro]

I have no idea what he meant by that, and I just recently watched every single one of Tyson's fights that are on the Internet.

I thought the sweet science could take a hike?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I have told you that. Fishes are created earlier than land animals.

Is that a super achievement by Moses? Why don't you give him credit on this wonderful wisdom?

What else does the Bible talk about fossils? I can not find any. So, what is your objection? You questioned what the Bible does not suggest.

May be you should question if it is true that plants are created earlier then life in the water. Would you have this idea if you were Moses?

Not that super an achievement. If you recall he also said that birds were created on the same day as fish. He also said everything in the water was created on the same day. As I have outlined, that is completely inconsistent with the fossil record. If you get one thing approximately right while getting way more of it wrong, it's not wisdom it's luck. Was "Fish show up before land animals" your only argument for the fossil record conforming to Genesis? You have already acknowledged that the fossil record doesn't match the creation story or the flood model, you just tell yourself that the only reason you have no answer is because you don't know anything about biology.

It doesn't matter if you believe everything was created in one literal week, or if it was created over whatever random period you personally subscribe to; the order of the fossil record doesn't conform to the order of creation in Genesis. And it definitely doesn't conform to what we should expect to see if it were all deposited over the course of a year or so by the Flood.

So again, what support do you have for saying that the fossil record fits with the Bible? Because I have already shown that you can hardly call Genesis accurate when it talks about the simultaneous appearance of every single sea creature plus birds before land animals. That's objectively not supported by the fossil record.