User Tag List

Page 5 of 36 FirstFirst ... 234567815 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 540

Thread: The fossil record shows there never was evolution.

  1. #61
    Over 3000 post club Sonnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,223
    Thanks
    146
    Thanked 773 Times in 664 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55658
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    'Epoch' is a compromise between what God says and secularists say.

    God defines the word days in context in Gen. 1:5 "God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day."..... 24 hour days.
    Rather, however long that day lasted.

    From the straight forward reading of Gods Word, how can Christians fit millions of years into the Bible? Here are a few answers as to why "epochs" contradicts scripture.

    A Theologian Answers
    Dr Peter Barnes, lecturer in church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. He wrote: “…if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer…. The theological argument is also compelling. According to the Bible, there was no death until there was sin. The creation is cursed only after Adam sinned (cf. Genesis 3; Romans 5:12–21; 8:19–25). This implies that all the fossils of dead animals must date from after Adam’s fall. If there was blood and violence in the creation before Adam sinned, the theological structure of the biblical message would appear to suffer considerable dislocation"

    A Hebrew Scholar Answers
    (who does not believe Genesis)
    James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
    "Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".
    By the middle of the 19th century many Christian geologist accepted that the rock layers found in the geologic column are not consistent with evidence one would expect from the Noachian flood.

    How do you respond?

  2. #62
    Over 3000 post club Sonnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,223
    Thanks
    146
    Thanked 773 Times in 664 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55658
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    This kind of blind fundamentalism is pathetic, and in this case, also embarrassing.
    Your evidence?

  3. #63
    Over 3000 post club Sonnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,223
    Thanks
    146
    Thanked 773 Times in 664 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55658
    Quote Originally Posted by Elia View Post
    Bs"d
    I'm curious - Bs"d means what?

  4. #64
    LIFETIME MEMBER
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,190
    Thanks
    566
    Thanked 927 Times in 774 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    122526
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnet View Post
    Revelation 4:11 (regarding God)
    Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

    John 1:3 (regarding Jesus)
    Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

    Therefore, in terms of Creation at least, there is an equivalence between Christ and God.

    john 1:3 is not speaking of Jesus.

    It is speaking of Gods word, of His light, of His Spirit.

    LA

  5. #65
    Over 1500 post club Elia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Judean desert
    Posts
    1,831
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 76 Times in 72 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    22711
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnet View Post
    I'm curious - Bs"d means what?
    Bs"d

    The above is an abbreviation of the Aramaic expression "Ba siata desmaya", and that means: "With the help of Heaven".
    Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Elia For Your Post:

    6days (April 27th, 2016)

  7. #66
    Over 3000 post club Sonnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,223
    Thanks
    146
    Thanked 773 Times in 664 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55658
    Quote Originally Posted by Elia View Post
    Bs"d

    The above is an abbreviation of the Aramaic expression "Ba siata desmaya", and that means: "With the help of Heaven".
    ta

  8. #67
    Over 3000 post club Sonnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,223
    Thanks
    146
    Thanked 773 Times in 664 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55658
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy afternoon View Post
    john 1:3 is not speaking of Jesus.

    It is speaking of Gods word, of His light, of His Spirit.

    LA
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it.

    There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

    The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

    The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

    (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ”) Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Sonnet For Your Post:

    6days (April 27th, 2016)

  10. #68
    Over 3000 post club Sonnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,223
    Thanks
    146
    Thanked 773 Times in 664 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55658
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy afternoon View Post
    john 1:3 is not speaking of Jesus.

    It is speaking of Gods word, of His light, of His Spirit.

    LA
    Who was Jesus?

  11. #69
    Over 3000 post club Sonnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,223
    Thanks
    146
    Thanked 773 Times in 664 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55658
    We know he wasn't Michael - Hebrews 1.

    To which of the angels did he ever say, 'thou art my son...'

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Sonnet For Your Post:

    6days (April 27th, 2016)

  13. #70
    Over 6000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,017
    Thanks
    1,086
    Thanked 4,114 Times in 2,442 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1833089
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnet View Post
    Rather, however long that day lasted.
    The creation days were 24 hour periods of time. Although the word 'yom' / day can mean shorter or longer periods of time, the meaning is always understood by the context. There are several markers / indicators that do not allow for anything other than 24 hour creation days.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnet View Post
    By the middle of the 19th century many Christian geologist accepted that the rock layers found in the geologic column are not consistent with evidence one would expect from the Noachian flood.
    How do you respond?
    Perhaps every Christian geologist had compromised at that time not realizing the effect their compromise had on the gospel..... and not realizing how this compromise lead future generations to believe the Bible was inaccurate, and not very relevant.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    Tambora (May 10th, 2016)

  15. #71
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,252
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 611 Times in 440 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    196956
    Quote Originally Posted by Elia View Post
    Bs"d
    So the question becomes whether you persist in this quote mining out of stupidity or dishonesty.

    As Gould says very clearly: Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

    So it is clear enough that between species, there are no transitional forms.
    So it must be stupidity. What else explains your inability to understand that "generally lacking" is not the same as "completely non-existent"?

    Again: Evolution is totally lacking in the fossil record.
    No, actually it's not.

    From where do you get that utterly crazy idea that "in science quotes are pretty much meaningless"???
    From the fact that I work in science, read scientific journals, attend conferences, and discuss science with my colleagues, and no one ever takes something as true merely because someone says it is. That's why scientific papers have sections where the scientists describe how they collected and analyzed the data, and how it led to their conclusions. That's why presentations at scientific conferences do the same.

    Data is what matters.

    It is very VERY important what the evolutionst experts say on the matter.
    And as we've seen, the one you like to quote the most (Gould) says transitional fossils are abundant and anyone who tries to quote him as saying otherwise is either stupid or a liar.

    Do you agree with the fact that if the dinosaurs gradually evolved into birds,that the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous, and that then every geological formation and every stratum must be full of such intermediate links between dino's and birds?
    You dodged the question. Remember, we're determining whether transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds exist. So again, if birds are evolved descendants of dinosaurs, we would expect to find fossil specimens that show this transition. Specifically, we would expect to find specimens that show a mixture of dino-like and bird-like features.

    Do you agree with that?


    "But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

    Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
    Nice quote mine. It's fascinating how some folks claiming to be on the side of God are so consistently dishonest.
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

  16. #72
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,252
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 611 Times in 440 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    196956
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Perhaps every Christian geologist had compromised at that time not realizing the effect their compromise had on the gospel..... and not realizing how this compromise lead future generations to believe the Bible was inaccurate, and not very relevant.
    You can actually read the writings of many of them. Some of them describe how painful it was to have to ditch their previous beliefs about the flood and such, and they knew full well what that meant for their theology. But being good scientists, they also knew they had to follow the data wherever it led.
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Jose Fly For Your Post:

    commonsense (May 8th, 2016)

  18. #73
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,517
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,167 Times in 819 Posts

    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    278344
    Quote Originally Posted by Elia View Post
    Bs"d

    I call it realism. It's pathetic when people cannot accept the fact that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, even though scores of evolutionist experts say so in unison.

    That's what is called cognitive dissonance.
    ...and I suppose you have some conspiracy theory to explain why the vast majority of biologists think Evolution makes sense.

    The bottom line is that the creatures that inhabited the Earth ages ago were different than what inhabits the Earth today. The fossil record is not complete, but there are plenty of examples of how species developed.

    As I said- you are an embarrassment.

  19. #74
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,120
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 1,770 Times in 1,297 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    523680
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnet View Post
    The Noachian flood remains problematic - rock layers are not consistent with a single catastrophic deluge.
    That depends on how you expect the landscape to change during the catastrophic deluge and whether you expect any additional changes to happen throughout the millennium following the deluge.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  20. #75
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    7,390
    Thanks
    124
    Thanked 1,326 Times in 1,093 Posts

    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Whether evolutionists want to accept it or not, the fossil record is a problem. What is also a problem is how, incidentally, the Deluge just happens to be a mighty explanation for a myriad of things, right down to the fossils and fuels themselves.

    Evolutionists don't want to admit that they talked too much, having become arrogant, and giving evolution a lot more praise and solidarity then is actually warranted.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us