Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[AV1611VET]

It is a human tendency.

Ya ... I think scientists call it "pessimism" or something; then try to preach to us not to be so "negative."

Unless, as I said before, it comes to the Bible -- then their pessimism shines.

That's why they don't like the Bible.

It exposes them.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ya ... I think scientists call it "pessimism" or something; then try to preach to us not to be so "negative."

Unless, as I said before, it comes to the Bible -- then their pessimism shines.

That's why they don't like the Bible.

It exposes them.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Nah, I know I am a pessimist. Being atheist doesn't help with that, though I do know a few surprisingly cheery atheists. How I remember stuff also played a role, I remember events but not their labels easily. Maybe instead of the Purim story, you should have said "when Esther protected the Jews from Haman). I would have recognized that better, it is a really common story to refer to.

 

[CabVet]

Ya ... I think scientists call it "pessimism" or something; then try to preach to us not to be so "negative."

Scientists don't preach.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Scientists don't preach.

Maybe no religion, but some get really into their own theories.

 

[CabVet]

Maybe no religion, but some get really into their own theories.

Very few scientists can claim theories as their own. And defending a theory is not preaching.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Very few scientists can claim theories as their own. And defending a theory is not preaching.

Not suggesting it was, but people do get defensive when something they viewed as a great accomplishment in their life is challenged.

 

[CabVet]

Not suggesting it was, but people do get defensive when something they viewed as a great accomplishment in their life is challenged.

Not if it is challenged by clear and direct evidence… And it has been a long time since any scientific theory was challenged.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not if it is challenged by clear and direct evidence… And it has been a long time since any scientific theory was challenged.

Maybe challenged professionally. I see at least 5 different people challenge evolution on here every afternoon.

 

[CabVet]

Maybe challenged professionally. I see at least 5 different people challenge evolution on here every afternoon.

And those challenges are neither valid nor based on evidence. As I said many times here, if anybody could disprove evolution, whoever did it would probably get a Nobel prize for it. But I have no idea of how we got here from "scientists don't preach".

 

[PsychoSarah]

And those challenges are neither valid nor based on evidence. As I said many times here, if anybody could disprove evolution, whoever did it would probably get a Nobel prize for it. But I have no idea of how we got here from "scientists don't preach".

Threads get off topic really easily sometimes.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Soooo anyway, I believe we were discussing why the order of the fossil record doesn't match with the Biblical account of creation.

O.k. but it is no use trying to compare it and match it to the creation record. Or ask why it doesn't. It won't match.

ED agrees it doesn't match but posits that it's only because the Flood ruined everything. He seems to have forgotten that he's already run away from a thread where this topic came up and he still has not provided more than a bald assertion that the record fits with the Flood.

Let me know exactly what the earth looked like then, the shape and size of each continent and the type of climate. Just so I can better answer your questions.

Oh please, ED. You tried this exact tactic on me when you first tried to argue that the Flood explains the fossil record. None of this information has any bearing on the fact that the fossil record should be a jumbled mess; there shouldn't be such an obvious pattern. I think this is the point you ran away last time. All the mechanisms you implied (but were too timid to explicitly commit to) have been refuted, including the baseless argument that the size of the Flood would have caused fluid physics to operate differently.

Absolutely.

I'm also acknowledging that the cosmic record is not consistent with the description of creation given in Genesis as well.

Like I said ... it tops the fossil record in spades.

So if you think the fossil record is "wrong," just look up, everything is "wrong."

At least AV here is being honest with everyone. He believes the Bible, but he is honest enough to admit that the fossil record is not consistent with it, regardless of his justifications. And we know Dad accepts that too. He just uses a made-up feature of his made up former state to explain it away.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Weren't "cows" domesticated? And maybe they came from aurochs?
Aurochs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People also tend to breed different animals to make new animals too...something to consider.

I think you're missing the point here Anya. The point is that the fossil record does not line up with the biblical account of creation. Cows are an example. The same issue exists with whales, dolphin, marine reptiles etc not showing up in the Devonian with the fish. In fact the bible explicitly states the birds were created with the fish before the land animals. Yet they appear higher in the record than land animals. You see the problem?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Not so clear. I do not see the word "all".
In Genesis 1, "every" word counts. Both said and not said are meaningful.

Come on Juve. Please explain to me the distinction between "all" and "every" Please feel free to get as layman as possible about just to make sure I understand. You like to say you're trying to teach us, so please teach me this unfamiliar distinction between what appear to be a couple synonyms.

Also, I notice you continue to gloss over the fact that the Bible explicitly states that birds were created on the same day as fish before the land animals appeared. So why do they show up after the land animals in the fossil record?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Any religion's greatest weakness is its own doctrine, as the saying goes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Any religion's greatest weakness is its own doctrine, as the saying goes.

Christianity isn't a religion.

Religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Christianity isn't a religion.

Religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

Ok........................................

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok........................................

Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, I believe religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, I believe religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

That is actually a decent observation. Proud of you.

 

[CabVet]

Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, I believe religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

Gravity occurs whether it is resisted or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gravity occurs whether it is resisted or not.

Did I say it didn't?