Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[chair]

It's somewhere in this thread.

Please indicate WHERE.

And what do we find?

Exactly what I am asking you. Do you have evidence from the fossil record to support your theory? If so- please show us a few examples.

 

[6days]

2. The question isn't what we*shouldfind. The question is what*do*we find.

Good question..

In the fossil record, we find sudden appearance of the various kinds with lots of variety. We don't see one kind of animal morphing into a different kind. We see incredible complexity at the beginning. And, we see extinctions.*

The fossil record provides excellent evidence supporting the truth of God's Word...miraculous creation and the global flood.*

 

[gcthomas]

Good question..

In the fossil record, we find sudden appearance of the various kinds with lots of variety. We don't see one kind of animal morphing into a different kind. We see incredible complexity at the beginning. And, we see extinctions.*

The fossil record provides excellent evidence supporting the truth of God's Word...miraculous creation and the global flood.*

How can the fossil record show appearances and extinctions if all the fossils were laid down at the same time is a global flood? What can you possibly mean?

 

[Stripe]

How can the fossil record show appearances and extinctions if all the fossils were laid down at the same time is a global flood? What can you possibly mean?

They weren't all laid down at the same time.

I love the easy questions.

 

[chair]

Please indicate WHERE.


Exactly what I am asking you. Do you have evidence from the fossil record to support your theory? If so- please show us a few examples.

Stripe- this should be straightforward for you to reply to.

Thanks.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe- this should be straightforward for you to reply to.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

 

[chair]

... Do you have evidence from the fossil record to support your theory? If so- please show us a few examples.

Stripe, can you actually answer the question?

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, can you actually answer the question?

When you've caught up on the conversation, let us know. :up:

 

[6days]

*Do you have evidence from the fossil record to support your theory? If so- please show us a few examples.

* Evidence of fossized marine creatures high on mountain ranges everywhere on earth.

* Evidence of catastrophic rapid burial throughout fossil record.

* Evidence of sudden appearance of complex sophisticated life forms and structures.*


Chair..... your question to Stripe suggests you don't know what evidence is. Biblical creationists and atheists all have the same evidence. For example, I listed 3 evidences above which support the global flood. *Atheists also have the same evidence but different interpretations. If interested... evidence best fits the Biblical model.

 

[chair]

When you've caught up on the conversation, let us know. :up:

Oh, nothing to worry about there. I know exactly where this conversation is. It is at the point where you don't have any real evidence to support your theory, but are incapable of admitting it, so you fall into your usual pattern of non-answers.

This thread was going OK until now. Oh well.

Typically, your next post will be some emoticons. Jeremiah 13:23

 

[Stripe]

This thread was going OK until now. Oh well.

Well, no. You guys took an age to start discussing the evidence and now you're pretending the ball is in my court.

 

[chair]

Well, no. You guys took an age to start discussing the evidence and now you're pretending the ball is in my court.

It is in your court. You presented a theory, that implies particular things about the fossil record and historical writings. Now it is time for you to present evidence from the fossil record or historical writings that supports your theory. Pretending that you already proved it when in fact you haven't won't make this go away. Nor will pretending that it is my job to find counter evidence.

 

[Stripe]

It is in your court. You presented a theory, that implies particular things about the fossil record and historical writings. Now it is time for you to present evidence from the fossil record or historical writings that supports your theory. Pretending that you already proved it when in fact you haven't won't make this go away. Nor will pretending that it is my job to find counter evidence.

Nope.

This discussion is about the definition of kind compared with the paucity of the Darwinists' terminology.

You started talking about evidence seemingly only because you think that our ideas need to bow to your demands to be considered "scientific," and probably because you're so uncomfortable with the semantics of evolutionary scripture being scrutinized.

And there has been a discussion over what should be found in the rocks, but you've chosen to ignore that.

When you've learned to conduct a rational discussion, then you can start lecturing us. :up:

 

[Greg Jennings]

so you are saying evolution is not complex code from nothing.

I don't believe I've ever seen a definition of evolution that is anything close to "complex code from nothing."

 

[Greg Jennings]

Words have meaning. Without meaning, why would we use a word?

The definition of kind is: All the organisms that are descended from a common ancestor population.

The definition of species is vague and malleable. It is next to useless in a scientific context.

If I ask you a question, will you answer it?

A simple yes or no will do

 

[Greg Jennings]

God created kinds, which reproduce among themselves.

Since then, the kinds have diversified within themselves.

Evidence, remember?

Where is the evidence for "since then, the kinds have diversified within themselves"

Evidence, remember?

This has already been presented to you. Lions and tigers were once part of a more homogeneous population that contained both "species."

This is just you saying so. You need evidence that they were the same "kind", within the past 6,000 years.

They can interbreed. They are still the same kind today.

You're a joke, Stripe. Perpetually playing dodgeball and trying to say nobody will talk evidence with him.

:mock:Stripe

 

[Greg Jennings]

Move

 

[Greg Jennings]

Darwinists hate sticking to the topic when it comes to talking about evidence.

Nope.

This discussion is about the definition of kind compared with the paucity of the Darwinists' terminology.

You started talking about evidence seemingly only because you think that our ideas need to bow to your demands to be considered "scientific," and probably because you're so uncomfortable with the semantics of evolutionary scripture being scrutinized

When you've learned to conduct a rational discussion, then you can start lecturing us. :up:

Always clever with the irony, you are

 

[Jose Fly]

* Evidence of fossized marine creatures high on mountain ranges everywhere on earth.

Because apparently in the midst of a cataclysmic global flood, clams climbed/swam to the top, attached, died, and then were buried in sediment...

...or...

Mt. Everest didn't exist and the layers that are now on top were sea floor when the flood happened, and in less than a year the entire thing...buried clams and all...was uplifted to about its present height and shape in one year without giving off any heat or having the flood sediments erode away.

Makes total sense, right? :rotfl:

 

[6days]

Makes total sense, right? :rotfl:

Yes... creation and the global flood model does explain the evidence.
The alternative explanation seems to be that once upon a time there was nothing..... then a cold whoosh caused everything. Then life came from non life..... complexity came from chaos..... information came from nowhere...... birds came from dinosaurs..... Humans developed big brains by cooking their food....the appendix evolved independently 38 times.... and the human eye is maybe a good design and maybe a bad design, but no matter what it proves philosophers evolved from fish. And...nobody lived happily ever after.
Makes total sense, right?
:rotfl: