Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[Sayre]

Used by Darwin to base the order of evolution on.

Really?

If you have a link to an article about this... I'd like to read it.

Thanks

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I think an all or none approach is a fallacy.

I can bundle these three statements together:

1+1=2
1+2=3
5+8=1

And you can choose to adopt an "all or none" literal approach, but that would be in error. Discovering the context of the bible and the intent of the authors often means moving away from modern fundamentalism (which is a very recent development). This isn't the same as not following the bible "word for word" but giving proper attention to context.

For example, if you discover, after studying context, that I am doing my mathematics on a clock face, and not on a linear number line, then all of a sudden the last equation makes sense.

What you are saying about context and the bible is fine, but the only context that will give results is one that assumes its contents are nothing more than the writing of men 2 to 3 three thousand years ago presenting their mistaken views, their myths as well as their correct views of the world we live in. Any other context fails. The lengths people have to go to to try and cobble together hopeless defences of other readings of the book demonstrates this.

Many people enjoy the philosophy of Jesus without all the spiritual crap. The sermon on the mount is a good example of this. Are they wrong? Didn't you claim a few days back that you still live by the ten commandments? Are you being a hypocrite?

The trouble is that by itself that isn't enough to make the book special. That just makes it one among many. After all, even the naffest books in the mind, body, spirit section of the bookshop probably have a couple of paragraphs in them that are good common sense, even if the rest is baloney.

 

[Sayre]

What you are saying about context and the bible is fine, but the only context that will give results is one that assumes its contents are nothing more than the writing of men 2 to 3 three thousand years ago presenting their mistaken views, their myths and their correct views of the world we live in. Any other context fails. The lengths people have to go to to try and cobble together hopeless defences of other readings of the book demonstrates this.

The trouble is that by itself that isn't enough to make the book special. That just makes it one among many.

I don't believe in inerrancy, and I'm not even sure that the book is inspired. I tend to think of it not as God's revelation to mankind, but as a history of His revelation to mankind (or at least, how mankind perceived God). I find it interesting to read about how people of the past interpreted events - even if they get it wrong. I don't think it is legitimate history (more of a history retold and reshaped to give a spiritual meaning). I totally understand if this isn't of value to you. But to me, this is far more valuable than a book that gets poofed down from the sky or whispered directly into Moses ear.

 

[mzungu]

And yet is the most historically accurate book in the world. Used by archeologists to date unknown finds, and to place and date artifacts. Used by Darwin to base the order of evolution on.

Source?

http://carm.org/archaeological-evidence-verifying-biblical-cities

Archaeological Evidence verifying biblical cities|Old and New Testament cities in the Bible | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Every archeological dig made only ends up verifying the accuracy of the Bible. It isn't the accuracy of the Bible that is in question, the only thing scientists doubt are it's spiritual matters.

This is a blatant lie! Science does not accept the Bible's claims. Just because real places are mentioned in the Bible does not give its claims credence. Greek mythology is full of real places and real people yet it is still mythology. Harry Potter has real places but is still a work of fiction.

The only difference is that the Bible says God created the heavens and the Earth and scientists say the Big Bang miraculously created the heavens and the earth. A theory proposed by a priest and accepted by science to meld the two together.

Wrong! The difference between science and the Bible is that science does not delve into the uinfalsifiable. Religion is purely in the realms of the unfalsifiable. Science and creationism simply cannot agree under any circumstances.

In reality you only have a problem with 10% of the Bible, the rest most archeologists know is accurate.

If you applied the dame unfair reasoning to the rest of historical literature that you attempt to apply to the Bible, we would be left with no historical writings at all.

Really? Are you claiming that the Bible is the only book of history of the times? You need an education on history. This is one of the most absurd claims.

Some videos you might want to watch before you make inaccurate statements attempting to dispute the Bibles Historical accuracy supported by archeology.

Creationist videos mean nothing to me as they do not constitute as evidence.

So it isn't the historical accuracy of the Bible that is really in dispute, just the 10% that deals with spiritual matters. So even though the 90% has been shown to be 99% accurate, you would throw out the other 10% based on what?

Wrong. I dispute 99% of the Bible.

Time after time it is modern historians that have proved to be in error when they make claims at odds with the Bible's recorded history. Yet people continue to this day to pass on inaccurate rubish they have decided is fact, simply because they want to believe the Bible is not reliable.

Your creationists are no match to modern historical science.

 

[CabVet]

And yet is the most historically accurate book in the world. Used by archeologists to date unknown finds, and to place and date artifacts. Used by Darwin to base the order of evolution on.

I knew you made up stuff, but this is too much.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Well I started some research and apparently they found another fossil bird called the protoavis that is 75 million years before the other bird fossil that starts with an A (the dinosaur bird). They say this bird is closer to our modern birds and is 75 MILLION years older than the dinosaur bird....

Sorry Anya, but finding an older bird doesn't resolve your issue. Your bible explicitly says that the birds and the fish appeared together, along with all the other sea creatures, before the land animals. So when we find land animals before birds and whales and mosasaurs in the fossil record, that is a problem for you. Would you like to address it this time? Feel free to invoke the Flood, but that has been just as thoroughly debunked as an explanation for the fossil record.

In conclusion, the fossil record is a very bad indicator of the past!!!!!!!!!!!

Just putting "In conclusion" in front of something doesn't mean it is true or logically follows from what you have posted. In the case, for instance. You seem to imagine that disagreement between gradualists and proponents of punctuated equilibrium proves somehow that the fossil record is not a good indicator of the past world. This is incorrect. It is not a complete record, but that doesn't make it worthless.

Though by asserting that it is "very bad" you are implicitly agreeing that it doesn't support the Bible, which is good.

 

[Queller]

They would be in different areas and to different extents. Remember, the earth was warmer during the times of the dinosaurs, so the sea levels would have been higher, there would have been more coastline to landmass ratio, so violent weather and general precipitation would have been greater, there would have been more shallow seas than there are today. There is a reason that most of the creatures that lived during the times of dinosaurs are not today, the climate is completely different. Even water and soil pH would be different.

I think we are talking at cross-purposes. ED believes (from what I can tell) that all dolphins, whales, sea turtles, plesiosaurs, and everything else all lived together at one time. The sea level doesn't matter to that claim, nor does the fact that there would be more shallow seas, or anything like that.

We NEVER find a sea turtle fossil with an archelon fossil even though they both supposedly shared the same living environment. We also never find either in Devonian era strata even though they would have shared the same living environment with the lobe-finned and ray-finned fish for which we have an abundance of fossils in the Devonian.

 

[Queller]

There is also no reason that the data could be interpreted to show not multiple extinction events but one extinction event caused by rising waters.
(Scientists have listed five unexplained extinction events at the end of certain eras. Most of them being marine species.)

The problem is that there is no evidence for ONE extinction event or a global flood.

There is also no reason why certain animals may have inhabited only certain ecological areas on the earth, unlike today. Today's environments with animals living together are not necessarily the same as ones in the past.

However, there is no evidence to support that notion. Dolphins and sharks live in almost all ocean environments and eat fish. Plesiosaurs and pliosaurs lived in almost all ocean environments and ate fish. What would have kep them from living and eating in the same area?

 

[Queller]

That is what I said. "Every" does not mean "All".
Guess you still do not know the difference.

What dictionary are you using? Because in the ones I looked in, "every" does mean "all".

Every 1: a: being each individual or part of a group without exception

Every 1. All of a countable group, without exception.

Every 2. allpossible; the greatest possible degree of: every prospect of success.

Every 1. (preceding a singular noun) used to refer to all the individual members of a set without exception

 

[Loudmouth]

The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next.

Darwin was the first person to propose that evolution would produce abrupt changes in the fossil record. Both of these quotes are from Origin of Species:

"Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species."

"Hence, when the same species occur at the bottom, middle, and top of a formation, the probability is that they have not lived on the same spot during the whole period of deposition, but have disappeared and reappeared, perhaps many times, during the same geological period. So that if such species were to undergo a considerable amount of modification during any one geological period, a section would not probably include all the fine intermediate gradations which must on my theory have existed between them, but abrupt, though perhaps very slight, changes of form. "

He claimed that the gaps were due to “the extreme imperfection of the geological record” – the fossil record does not in fact give a very good record of the past.

Then why do you expect a fine gradation of intermediate links if the geologic record is extremely imperfect?

Darwin expected more intermediate forms to be found as research continued.

More intermediate forms have been found. As of yet, nothing even approaching a mammal in the Devonian.

The fossil record is the cause of ongoing debate between evolutionists. On one side geneticists and theoreticians stand for Darwinian “gradualism.” They continue to claim that the lack of intermediate forms is due to the rarity of fossilisation and the imperfection of the fossil record. Thus, the fossil record is something which needs to be explained away – it is not good evidence for Darwinian evolution.
The Fossil Record

Now you are just making stuff up.

 

[anyathesword]

Sorry Anya, but finding an older bird doesn't resolve your issue. Your bible explicitly says that the birds and the fish appeared together, along with all the other sea creatures, before the land animals. So when we find land animals before birds and whales and mosasaurs in the fossil record, that is a problem for you. Would you like to address it this time? Feel free to invoke the Flood, but that has been just as thoroughly debunked as an explanation for the fossil record.


Just putting "In conclusion" in front of something doesn't mean it is true or logically follows from what you have posted. In the case, for instance. You seem to imagine that disagreement between gradualists and proponents of punctuated equilibrium proves somehow that the fossil record is not a good indicator of the past world. This is incorrect. It is not a complete record, but that doesn't make it worthless.

Though by asserting that it is "very bad" you are implicitly agreeing that it doesn't support the Bible, which is good.

First of all, the fossil record doesn't support evolution!! There are no intermediate forms, there are no missing links, there is only ONE possible fossil bird to explain that ALL birds came from it!!!!! From this WHOLE world!!!

Evolution just doesn't sit on solid ground. It is just as much as a myth as any other myth out there.

For one it is trying to explain the origin of life, isn't that what a myth does? Try to explain how life came around?

Second, myths are NARRATIVE, trying to put history in a time-structure. Isn't that what evolution is doing? Putting the past into a timeline?

Third, "a myth always refers to events alleged to have taken place long ago. But what gives the myth an operational value is that the specific pattern described is timeless, it explains the present and the past as well as the future." Claude Lévi-Strauss. That's exactly what evolution is doing, trying to explain the past, the present, and the future.

"There is a group of sciences committed to narrative in a more discursive style than physics and on a different time scale. They seek to reconstruct sequences of events in the past — sequences presumed to be unique or so hugely cyclic that they are beyond experiment: Cosmology and geology are such sciences. Paleontology, or the study of the origin of living things on earth, and paleoanthropology, the study of human evolution, are further examples, in descending order of taxonomic scope and of time scale. Ideally, they should all fit together in a coherent epic account of our world: how it came to be and how humankind came to have its particular place in it.
This book is concerned with the most intimate of the narrative sciences, paleoanthropology. It addresses a group of classic texts in paleoanthropology beginning in the generation of Charles Darwin. It asks what happens if we look at these texts as narratives, leaving aside issues of truth or justification. What it finds is that these texts are determined as much by traditional narrative frameworks as by material evidence."

"Of course, proving categorically that a historical narrative is 'true' is never possible."


Evolution is a historical narrative just like a myth.

Did we forget the scientific method? Did we observe the past? Can we repeat the past? NO!!!!

Evolution has become a religion to people, not a science.

Actually Hitler used Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory to destroy 6 million Jews!!! Sounds like a good plan!

http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm

 

[anyathesword]

Sorry Anya, but finding an older bird doesn't resolve your issue. Your bible explicitly says that the birds and the fish appeared together, along with all the other sea creatures, before the land animals. So when we find land animals before birds and whales and mosasaurs in the fossil record, that is a problem for you. Would you like to address it this time? Feel free to invoke the Flood, but that has been just as thoroughly debunked as an explanation for the fossil record.


Just putting "In conclusion" in front of something doesn't mean it is true or logically follows from what you have posted. In the case, for instance. You seem to imagine that disagreement between gradualists and proponents of punctuated equilibrium proves somehow that the fossil record is not a good indicator of the past world. This is incorrect. It is not a complete record, but that doesn't make it worthless.

Though by asserting that it is "very bad" you are implicitly agreeing that it doesn't support the Bible, which is good.

I am not agreeing that it doesn't support the Bible! It does support the Bible more so than Evolution!!

You really think that scientists traveled back in time to see what exactly happened? The fossil record just shows what kind of creatures existed in the past and yes catastrophic events can mess up the fossil record.

Yes birds were created on the same day as fish. If evolutionists can't even agree on their own theories such as whether something Evolved quickly or slowely, is sad in itself.

For example a new discovery in the Cambrian period shows this new update: "Among the most surprising discoveries, announced in 1999, came from the 530-million-year-old Chengjiang fossil bed in China, where scientists found the remains of two different types of tiny, jawless fish. Representing the oldest known backboned animals with living relatives, the fossils showed that our vertebrate ancestors entered the evolutionary story some 50 million years earlier than previously thought."
Cambrian Period, Cambrian Explosion Information, Prehistoric Facts -- National Geographic


Now really??? Theories change all the time....

 

[Queller]

And yet is the most historically accurate book in the world. Used by archeologists to date unknown finds, and to place and date artifacts. Used by Darwin to base the order of evolution on.

That doesn't make it valid in all claims. We can use the Harry Potter books to determine that King's Cross station is in London but that doesn't mean the entire Harry Potter series is true.

No one has ever given verifiable evidence of a global Flood using the Bible. No one has ever given verifiable evidence of a 6,000 year old earth using the Bible.

In reality you only have a problem with 10% of the Bible, the rest most archeologists know is accurate.

Where do you come up with this idea that 90% of the Bible is verified history?

So it isn't the historical accuracy of the Bible that is really in dispute, just the 10% that deals with spiritual matters. So even though the 90% has been shown to be 99% accurate, you would throw out the other 10% based on what?

Because what we can verify of the Bible has been verified by sources EXTERNAL to the Bible.

 

[Herman Hedning]

... Snip rambling ...

Actually Hitler used Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory to destroy 6 million Jews!!! Sounds like a good plan!

You are really pulling out all straw men and red herrings you can think of, aren't you? And Hitler too.

This thread has now been Godwined and is officially over.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

First of all, the fossil record doesn't support evolution!! There are no intermediate forms, there are no missing links, there is only ONE possible fossil bird to explain that ALL birds came from it!!!!! From this WHOLE world...

First, no paleontologist claims that this individual bird is the progenitor of all subsequent birds. That's absurd and much closer to a biblical claim. Second, it doesn't matter. I can't tell if you're just easily distracted or you are desperately trying to avoid addressing the issue.

I am not agreeing that it doesn't support the Bible! It does support the Bible more so than Evolution!!

You really think that scientists traveled back in time to see what exactly happened? The fossil record just shows what kind of creatures existed in the past and yes catastrophic events can mess up the fossil record.

Yes birds were created on the same day as fish. If evolutionists can't even agree on their own theories such as whether something Evolved quickly or slowely, is sad in itself.

You can't have it both ways, Anya. If you claim that the fossil record is a "very bad indicator of the past", it doesn't make sense to also claim it supports the bible. Choose one. Though both are wrong.

Anyway, in amongst all your tangential arguments, you seem to accept that the fossil record does not agree with the order of creation. Land animals unequivocally show up in the record before birds, whales and marine reptiles, all of which were supposedly created at the same time as the fish. You have invoked the Flood to explain this, but it really explains nothing at all. If the fossil record were all jumbled up by the Flood, then we should not see the zonation of fossils that we do see. Fish and birds and marine reptiles and dinosaurs and cows and neanderthals and trilobites should all be mixed together. Do you have a counterargument? Simply disagreeing doesn't count, nor does trying to talk about a different subject.

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all, the fossil record doesn't support evolution!! There are no intermediate forms,

there is only ONE possible fossil bird to explain that ALL birds came from it!!!!! From this WHOLE world!!!

I count 7

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution just doesn't sit on solid ground. It is just as much as a myth as any other myth out there.

Notice that we are not the ones who have to spread untruths about the fossil record. That would be you. We have the transitional fossils.

For one it is trying to explain the origin of life, isn't that what a myth does? Try to explain how life came around?

Evolution is accurate whether the first life got here through natural or supernatural means.

Second, myths are NARRATIVE, trying to put history in a time-structure. Isn't that what evolution is doing? Putting the past into a timeline?

Myths are fiction. Evolution is not a fiction. It is science, and backed by moutains of evidence that you refuse to even acknowledge.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not agreeing that it doesn't support the Bible! It does support the Bible more so than Evolution!!

You really think that scientists traveled back in time to see what exactly happened? The fossil record just shows what kind of creatures existed in the past and yes catastrophic events can mess up the fossil record.

Yes birds were created on the same day as fish. If evolutionists can't even agree on their own theories such as whether something Evolved quickly or slowely, is sad in itself.

For example a new discovery in the Cambrian period shows this new update: "Among the most surprising discoveries, announced in 1999, came from the 530-million-year-old Chengjiang fossil bed in China, where scientists found the remains of two different types of tiny, jawless fish. Representing the oldest known backboned animals with living relatives, the fossils showed that our vertebrate ancestors entered the evolutionary story some 50 million years earlier than previously thought."
Cambrian Period, Cambrian Explosion Information, Prehistoric Facts -- National Geographic


Now really??? Theories change all the time....

Show us a rabbit in the Cambrian.

 

[biggles53]

Anya, I think you get the award for being able to squeeze the maximum number of canards into the one post.............congratulations...!

 

[juvenissun]

What dictionary are you using? Because in the ones I looked in, "every" does mean "all".

Every 1: a: being each individual or part of a group without exception

Every 1. All of a countable group, without exception.

Every 2. allpossible; the greatest possible degree of: every prospect of success.

Every 1. (preceding a singular noun) used to refer to all the individual members of a set without exception

All right. I explain it to you in plain English:

If I have 30 students in a class and I take 20 of them out for a trip. I can refer to the group in traveling by "every students". But this will not include those did not go. In order to include them, I will say "all students".

God creates 100 fish kinds today, but that is not all fishes we see today. Because God creates another 100 fish kinds tomorrow. So, today, God see "every" fish He created is good. After the creation is over, then we can say that God created ALL fishes.

 

[Oafman]

All right. I explain it to you in plain English:

If I have 30 students in a class and I take 20 of them out for a trip. I can refer to the group in traveling by "every students". But this will not include those did not go. In order to include them, I will say "all students"

I did not understand that at all.