Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[Mr Strawberry]

That is why I said no human can write the Genesis 1.

You don't think humans are capable of writing imaginative fiction? I guess that figures. You don't give the impression of being widely read.

 

[Oafman]

Water was NOT listed as being created since it came from the air for it is a combination of oxygen and hydrogen within the air.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Can anyone tell us HOW ancient men, who lived thousands of years before Science, could have possibly known and written this Scientific Truth?

Where did ancient man write that water was formed from air?

I don't see it in Gen 1:1-2. And we know that water was supposed to exist by the time we get to Gen 1:2, because it claims God was hovering over it.

Actually, there's not even any mention of how air was formed*, nevermind any suggestion that water was formed from air. And if you're hoping to tell me that air was formed as part of the heavens, then I'll claim, with at least as much validity that water was included as part of earth.

Interpretation of vague text surely does not give you the right to simply make up stuff.

* it fails to mention air, because the person who wrote this did not know of the existence of air. He believed there was simply nothing between the land and the heavens. Our understanding of odourless and colourless gases came after this was written; yet more evidence that it was written by a human hand with absolutely no insight beyond their time.

 

[anyathesword]

Let's me get this right. You admit to not knowing what the evidence for evolution is. You are too lazy to make the effort to find out what the evidence is. But now you want us to provide the evidence for you so you can see how the theory of evolution was formulated , tested and verified. Seriously?

You have a lot of reading to catch up on.

Oh my my my.

Yes, isn't that a reason for debate? You still haven't explained it to me!!! What are you waiting for?

Have you caught up on your reading?

 

[anyathesword]

We've never directly observed a plate moving, and we certainly can't repeat it. But the theory of plate tectonics states, among other things, that the movement of such plates causes earthquakes. Are plate tectonics not science?

What about atomic theory? No one has ever directly observed an atom. Is atomic theory not science?

You say you took chemistry? I'm sure they taught you about reactions. Did you ever directly observe elements reacting? Actually see the atoms reacting? Did you actually see chemical bonds breaking with your own two eyes? No, of course not. But you still call that science, right?

No one's ever been to the center of the Earth, or even more than a few miles below the surface.

Nonetheless, we have things like this that tell us what the Earth is made of right to the core. We know what composition of our planet all the way through, even though we haven't and likely never will travel beneath the upper layers. Is that not scientific?

Would you say that, just because we've never been to the center of the Earth, that this depiction of the Earth's insides is as valid as the one above it? There are people who genuinely believe the Earth is hollow and that it has a star at its center. Since it can't be directly observed, should they be taken seriously?

Most things mentioned above have been observed and tested. I'm not talking about atoms, I'm not talking about plate tectonics, I'm not talking about the center of the earth, I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution, the origin of life!! How is that observable and repeatable?
Do you realize that Evolution is trying to narrate the past and explain where we came from??? Doesn't that sound like a myth to you or a religion???

Creationism is the origin of life, where it all came from, etc. Do you see anything here?

I'm talking about the Origin of Life, the Theory of Evolution. How is it using the scientific method?

 

[anyathesword]

No need to bother with all that science stuff you just stick with goddidit and you won't go far wrong, you'll get by.
Didn't you know that thick was the new cool? smart people are thought of as the new dumb dumbs,
especially by the new cool people.

China is training more scientist than there are white people in the US.

What are you talking about?

Ok?

I'm supposed to understand how this applies to my question?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Oh my my my.

Yes, isn't that a reason for debate? You still haven't explained it to me!!! What are you waiting for?

It's rather difficult to debate someone who doesn't know anything about a subject.

Have you caught up on your reading?

Which book that you have read from cover to cover on evolution are you recommending?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution, the origin of life!!

I don't usually use emoticons, but is sometimes the only response.

 

[Black Akuma]

Most things mentioned above have been observed and tested.

No, they haven't. At least not in the way you're thinking.

You said you took Chemistry, so I assume you accept that Chemistry is a science...but you've never directly observed a chemical bond being broken, have you? So how can it be science? Do you take it on faith that chemical bonds break during reactions? How do you know it's not the work of, say, invisible pixies?

I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution, the origin of life!!

I know. I'm drawing parallels.

How is that observable and repeatable?

If you're actually interested, read this.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method

Do you realize that Evolution is trying to narrate the past and explain where we came from???

No, it's an explanation of the diversity we find in life. Just because it describes something that happened in the past doesn't make it mythical. Lots of sciences do that.

 

[anyathesword]

Ok, I have to address this.

The Geologic Column absolutely, 100% positive, exists. It may not exist in the way you want it too, but it is there.

In simplified terms, the Geologic column is stratum. If you want a picture just Google Stratum or go to the grand canyon, or many other places that they are exposed.

Due to natural processes such as erosion you will not always find every layer together at once, but how we determine the layers is through Radiometric dating. The dating of stratum is what makes up the Geologic Column.

If you want a better example Google the K/T Boundary, this is found throughout the world and is made of shocked quartz and iridium (a very rare material on earth)

Now that we've covered the Geologic column, let's discuss radiometric dating. There are many isotopes that we can choose from to date many different things, some isotopes are better suited for some things.

Carbon-14 is used to date organic material with an approximate limit of 60,000 years. We know c14 dating works because we can test it by dating organic materials of a known age. With that said, Carbon-14 is never used to date stratum.

The better isotope for rock dating is Uranium-Lead. Despite what some creationists say about decay rates, there is no known mechanism by which the rate of decay changes.

Radiometric dating wasn't something someone just pulled out of thin air. We can directly measure decay rates and when crosschecked against other known methods of dating, the results are consistent.

Unfortunatly radiometric dating has a lot of flaws.

1. It's based on assumptions and biases and if the dating doesn't fit the scientists theory, it is discarded.

2. If there is no known beginning to life, how can scientists date a rock without knowing what it was composed of before?

It's kind of like a swimmer swimming a race. We know the time he starts, because we were there and we recorded it on a wristwatch. We saw how long it took him to finish the race, and we timed it with out wristwatch. So we know the beginning and the end.

If you only saw the end of the race, how would you know how long it took him to finish the race?

The starting time! Yes, but that's not enough! And niether is the accuracy of the wristwatch.

Without reliable witnesses the accuracy of the watch makes no difference. You can only establish the time for the race if it was timed by two or more qualified eyewitnesses who observed the start, the progress and the finish.

You cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.​

The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods

3. Creationists however have a beginning to start with, with witness accounts, written records, and geneolegies, to record the beginning, middle and end. They were there to observe what happened, such as the Flood.

 

[Queller]

I read it differently from you do.

I'll grant you that. Apparently you read it using your own dictionary.

Yours can not answer the fossil record.

I don't read it literally so mine has no problem with the fossil record.

Mine can.

Evidence free assertion.

 

[Queller]

Yes, I can. I am doing that.

Not successfully

 

[Queller]

Common, that is what wisdom is. It does not need understanding.

It does if it wants to defend something.

BTW, wisdom is very uncommon. I see that every day.

 

[Black Akuma]

Unfortunatly radiometric dating has a lot of flaws.

1. It's based on assumptions and biases and if the dating doesn't fit the scientists theory, it is discarded.

2. If there is no known beginning to life, how can scientists date a rock without knowing what it was composed of before?

It's kind of like a swimmer swimming a race. We know the time he starts, because we were there and we recorded it on a wristwatch. We saw how long it took him to finish the race, and we timed it with out wristwatch. So we know the beginning and the end.

If you only saw the end of the race, how would you know how long it took him to finish the race?

The starting time! Yes, but that's not enough! And niether is the accuracy of the wristwatch.

Without reliable witnesses the accuracy of the watch makes no difference. You can only establish the time for the race if it was timed by two or more qualified eyewitnesses who observed the start, the progress and the finish.

You cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.​

The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods

3. Creationists however have a beginning to start with, with witness accounts, written records, and geneolegies, to record the beginning, middle and end. They were there to observe what happened, such as the Flood.

Wrong on many, many counts.

Radiometric Dating

 

[Queller]

If I refer to each of those in the subset (trip), I do say "every student" but not "all students"

If God created 100 fish kinds in Day 5. At the end of the Day, God can say: EVERY one of the fishes is good.

Since God is going to create more fish on Day 6, so at the end of Day 5, God does not say: All fishes are good. Because some are not created yet.

There you go again. Adding to the Bible in direct defiance of the what the Bible says.

Proverbs 30:5-6

Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

 

[Queller]

We've never directly observed a plate moving, and we certainly can't repeat it. But the theory of plate tectonics states, among other things, that the movement of such plates causes earthquakes. Are plate tectonics not science?

What about atomic theory? No one has ever directly observed an atom. Is atomic theory not science?

You say you took chemistry? I'm sure they taught you about reactions. Did you ever directly observe elements reacting? Actually see the atoms reacting? Did you actually see chemical bonds breaking with your own two eyes? No, of course not. But you still call that science, right?

No one's ever been to the center of the Earth, or even more than a few miles below the surface.

Nonetheless, we have things like this that tell us what the Earth is made of right to the core. We know what composition of our planet all the way through, even though we haven't and likely never will travel beneath the upper layers. Is that not scientific?

Would you say that, just because we've never been to the center of the Earth, that this depiction of the Earth's insides is as valid as the one above it? There are people who genuinely believe the Earth is hollow and that it has a star at its center. Since it can't be directly observed, should they be taken seriously?

You have to admit, a hollow earth would be an interesting place to live. I'm not sure it would have enough gravity to maintain an atmosphere but hey, what a little thing like breathing matter, right?

 

[anyathesword]

I agree with that one, to write something like Genesis 1, a person has to unlearn everything he/she knows and think like someone who lived 3,000 years ago. That is not easy to do.

Now, how about we go back to topic? Why are there no cows in the Devonian? Or no fruit trees in the Cambrian?

The Devonian, Tertiary, Cambrian are all terms used by Evolutionists to narrate history. It is THEIR assumptions and point of view of the past even though they weren't there to see what happened.

If you look at this chart you will see how it differs greatly, lol!
http://biblicalgeology.net/images/stories/field_guides/comparison-lg.jpg

The devonian period is considered the ascending phase of the Flood, during 50 days after the Eruptive phase of the Flood. There is a huge time difference according to the view, 50 days to 100 million years or so.

The deal is if we can wrap our minds to the fact that The Flood caused a huge heck of damage, both in the eruptive phase and the ascending phase, then we can see that the fossil record is confusing.

During the Ascending phase there was UPLIFT, EROSION, and ERUPTION of rocks. And it all happened in a short time.

AFTER, we come to more uplift, erosion, and eruption. So how would something stay in the same layer anyway?

The cow would get uplifted, then eroded to another place, then erupted, then again the cycle continues but slowely. There is just no way to really know.

All we have is a true reliable written record to say what happened in the past by people who were there, not scientists today trying to make up their own narrative to the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unfortunatly radiometric dating has a lot of flaws.

1. It's based on assumptions and biases and if the dating doesn't fit the scientists theory, it is discarded.

Empty accusations, once again. I think we have already shown that you have been fed a long list of lies by professional creationists.

2. If there is no known beginning to life, how can scientists date a rock without knowing what it was composed of before?

Dating a rock has nothing to do with life.

You cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.

Using isochron dating methodologies you can measure the amount of starting material that was found in the rock when it formed.

Isochron Dating

Moreover, we know from chemistry that certain crystals will exclude certain elements and include others. For example, when zircons form they exclude Pb and include U. Therefore, any Pb we find in a zircon got there by the decay of U. In order for this not to work you will need to change the fundamental laws of physics.

3. Creationists however have a beginning to start with, with witness accounts, written records, and geneolegies, to record the beginning, middle and end. They were there to observe what happened, such as the Flood.

Stories in books are not witnesses.

 

[anyathesword]

You have to admit, a hollow earth would be an interesting place to live. I'm not sure it would have enough gravity to maintain an atmosphere but hey, what a little thing like breathing matter, right?

Well actually this thread isn't on this topic, but I just would like to mention that hell is located there, it is a physical place, and its hard to breath!!

No I don't think its a good place to live lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[anyathesword]

Wrong on many, many counts.

Radiometric Dating

Which ones?

 

[Black Akuma]

Well actually this thread isn't on this topic, but I just would like to mention that hell is located there, it is a physical place, and its hard to breath!!

No I don't think its a good place to live lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you serious?