Jump to content


Photo

What Can We Agree On?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
55 replies to this topic

#21 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 15 June 2010 - 10:43 AM

No they are completely random and mixed up. Look up Out of Place fossils on the net, this is a problem evolutionist face since they equate strata to certain fossils and then every once and awhile an out of place fossils appears. Creationists believe all of the strata was created rapidly, so the fossils will be mixed. There is no fossil pattern.
They are found in random places, hence why  evolutionists coined their ''out of place'' fossils. There is no pattern.

View Post


I think you will have to acknowledge that the phrase "out of place" fossils was coined by creationists. This is not what a geologist or paleontologist would say. Google it and see, I'll bet all you get is links to creationist sites.

#22 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 15 June 2010 - 11:02 AM

How do you know they are out of place?  they cannot be random because if they were then there could be no out of place fossils.


It's not me saying they are out of place, evolutionists are. Creationists don't believe their is a pattern in fossils.

How can fossils be defined as out-of-place if fossils are random?


I said evolutionists have the problem of ''out of place fossils'', not creationists (see what i wrote just above).

Produce reliable evidence of an out-of-place fossil that we can discuss.


'complex' fossils have been found at the lowest levels. an example: trilobites.

''And this situation has troubled everybody from the beginning—to have everything at the very opening of the drama. The curtain goes up [life forms first appear in the Cambrian strata] and you have the players on the stage already, entirely in modern costumes."—Norman Macbeth, Speech at Harvard University, September 24, 1983, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 150.

Extremely complicated creatures at the very beginning, with nothing leading up to them; that is the testimony of the rocks and fossils...this is why there are many geologists who believe in creation and that all fossils from all strata were deposited during the flood.

#23 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 15 June 2010 - 01:08 PM

Okay, you have obviously never gone fossil hunting.

I have been to Lyme Regis, and found parts of an icthyosaur spine, ammonites by the dozen and some Gryphaea.

I would advise that you go and examine some fossil hunting sites.

Also, using the Cambrian explosion as an example of out-of-place fossils is unbelievable.

Please, if you feel that you don't understand the evolution point of view, I can talk you through it. You don't have to accept it, but it would mean you would be talking from a position of an educated creationist.

But this conversation ends here. There is no possible way that any reasonable debate can be held with someone such as yourself.

#24 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 15 June 2010 - 01:48 PM

Scientists all over the world have been collecting and studying fossils for hundreds of years.

In all their research, this is what they discovered:

(1) There is no evidence of one kind of animal having changed into another one. (2) There are no transitional or halfway forms between animals.

We find in the very lowest fossil stratum, complex plants and animals—and lots of them, with no evidence that they evolved from anything.

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.

Even Charles Darwin admitted the problem in his book.

". . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."

Throughout the fossils, we find no transitions from one kind of creature to another. Instead, only individual, distinctive plant or animal kinds.

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them."—D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, p. 467.

#25 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 June 2010 - 03:39 PM

The reason we cannot agree is that one side would have to compromise what they believe happened. And because people who believe evolution believe that their theory is based on all facts. The one that will always have to compromise to agree will always be the Christian.

Because even the theistic-evolutionists has to deny:

1) The Biblical time-line.
2) The 6 days of creation.
3) Creation itself.
4) The flood being worldwide or happening at all.
etc....

This is why one will never see a evolutionist-theist. The only thing compromised in a scientific sense is abiogenesis (Replaced by a Creator). Problem is, when man is able to dictate to God how it happened, God is no longer God. Man becomes god because doing this means Man knows more than God's word. So the bases of this supports humanism, which does not glorify God.

Since creation idea existed first. Evolution is either going to be some support, or no support. Since the idea was thought up by a person who had a theology degree and had decided that God lied. It would be feasible to conclude that his idea would be the exact opposite of creation so that his idea can be totally against God. So let's test this.
On moral issues...

God's word says........................................Evolution says............
1) God is absolute.........................................There are no absolutes.
2) The word is true.......................................Truth is relative.
3) God does not lie........................................God is a liar.
4) God created man.......................................Man created God (out of need).
5) Man brought death into the world.................Death brought man into the world.
6) Man has a soul..........................................Man has no soul.
7) There is life after death..............................There is no life after death.
8) God is the supreme being............................Man top of food chain.
9) Sin will condemn you..................................Sin all you want.

On origin of life and universe issues...

1) Light before sun.......................................Sun before light.
2) Earth before sun......................................Sun before earth.
3) God created life.......................................Lighting created life.
4) Oceans before land...................................Land before oceans.
5) Land plant first........................................Marine life first.
6) Fruit tree before fish.................................Fish before fruit tree.
7) Fish before insects...................................Insects before fish.
8) Plants before sun.....................................Sun before plants.
9) Land animals before marine animals..............Marine animals before land animals.
10) Bird before reptiles..................................Reptiles before birds.
11) Atmosphere between 2 layers of water.......Atmosphere above water.

Reproduction issues....

1) Reproduction within a kind.......................Reproduction within and outside of kind.
2) Life only comes from life..........................Life comes from death and life.
3) Man is a separate creation.......................Man is an animal.
4) All life was created fully formed.................All life from single cell organism.
5) God creates life......................................Lightening creates life (abiogenesis).

To agree means Christians will have to compromise, not atheists.

And the reason evolution has to be the exact opposite of creation, God, and the Bible. Is because it was started by those who either rejected God, or were already admitted atheists. And it will continue in that direction because it's main support is by the same group that believes the same way.

To say as an excuse that many Christians believe in evolution as a means to make it okay, also needs to apply to evolutionists believing in God makes God okay. But as we know that is never said or implied because what's deemed right will always be one-sided.

#26 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 16 June 2010 - 01:41 AM

In this thread I am willing to bend over backwards to find agreement. I will drop all my presuppositions at the door. I will not be presenting an evolutionary explanation, or any other (apart from one, see the next time I mention 'Devonian' later).

There will be no attempt to draw any conclusions from this, I will not attempt make any comments abouyt dating of these things.

If you wish me to take on the 6,000 year age of the Earth and the idea that the global flood caused all these things, then I will even go that far (though technically that is unfair because it means you get to have theories and explanations whilst I don't).

The only caveat I have is that I will use geological and biological jargon, such as 'Devonian' or 'Prototaxites'. In each case I will use these without prejudice. I merely use them as convenient names. Now I will give the one explanarion I have allowed myself. It is called the Devonian because the rocks were first found in Devon, England.

Here are my points again:

1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.
2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .
3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period.
4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites is always found in layers below the Carboniferous Cycadophyta)
5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.

Which of these can we agree on?

#27 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 16 June 2010 - 01:47 AM

Scientists all over the world have been collecting and studying fossils for hundreds of years.

In all their research, this is what they discovered:

(1) There is no evidence of one kind of animal having changed into another one. (2) There are no transitional or halfway forms between animals.

We find in the very lowest fossil stratum, complex plants and animals—and lots of them, with no evidence that they evolved from anything.

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.

Even Charles Darwin admitted the problem in his book.

". . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."

Throughout the fossils, we find no transitions from one kind of creature to another. Instead, only individual, distinctive plant or animal kinds.

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them."—D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, p. 467.


Completely irrelevant and off topic to this thread. Why do you keep bringing up theory when I have not?

I have not made any claims that one form of life evolves into another, yet you keep bringing this up.

Drop the theories. The Cambrian explosion works in my favour within the context of this thread because I am not explaining it, but you have clearly stated that trilobites appear fuilly formed in these rocks.

That shows you agree with my points 2,3 and 4.

Notice, I am not going to attempt to explain why they are there. If you want to argue that the global flood put them there, then fine.

I just want a creationist to admit they are there in the first place.

#28 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 16 June 2010 - 04:21 AM

Completely irrelevant and off topic to this thread.  Why do you keep bringing up theory when I have not?

I have not made any claims that one form of life evolves into another, yet you keep bringing this up.

Drop the theories.  The Cambrian explosion works in my favour within the context of this thread because I am not explaining it, but you have clearly stated that trilobites appear fuilly formed in these rocks.

That shows you agree with my points 2,3 and 4.

Notice, I am not going to attempt to explain why they are there.  If you want to argue that the global flood put them there, then fine. 

I just want a creationist to admit they are there in the first place.

View Post

Cassiterides has already said (my emphasis):

No they are completely random and mixed up. Look up Out of Place fossils on the net, this is a problem evolutionist face since they equate strata to certain fossils and then every once and awhile an out of place fossils appears. Creationists believe all of the strata was created rapidly, so the fossils will be mixed. There is no fossil pattern.
They are found in random places, hence why  evolutionists coined their ''out of place'' fossils. There is no pattern.

This surprises me, since it doesn't seem to correlate with what is actually observed. What do other creationists think?

#29 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 16 June 2010 - 09:24 AM

In this thread I am willing to bend over backwards to find agreement.


Yet, your starting points were all based from Old Earth believers and evolutionist assumption. :lol: Firstly you confused Gap Creationists with YEC's, then when i pointed this out you still can't understand why YEC's don't agree with any of your points.

#30 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 16 June 2010 - 09:48 AM

I'm just gonna say it - it seems like you are setting a trap!

What is the point of this topic? What is your question?

Besides "What Can We Agree On?". What if we do agree, although it's been mentioned already that fossils do not always follow these strict placements, what if I say 'yes, I agree'.

What are you trying to get at?

#31 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 16 June 2010 - 12:57 PM

I'm just gonna say it - it seems like you are setting a trap!

What is the point of this topic?  What is your question?

Besides "What Can We Agree On?".  What if we do agree, although it's been mentioned already that fossils do not always follow these strict placements, what if I say 'yes, I agree'.

What are you trying to get at?

View Post


Excellent question, and one that deserves a full answer.

The only trap is that I have no idea where it will go. No creationist has ever admitted that some fossils are always found with others, and I have asked this same question on many forums.

Look at my points again, carefully:

1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.
2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .
3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period.
4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites is always found in layers below the Carboniferous Cycadophyta)
5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.

Is there anything here that makes any reliance on any theory? Is there anything that is patently false in what I say?

Ultimately, the evidence of the way fossils are found can be used as evidence. If we reach that point, I will argue that it shows evolution, whilst you will argue it shows creation. Until we agree what the evidence we are both looking at is, what is the point in arguing about theories? So many times (and Cassiterides has done it many times since I've been here already) creationists accuse me of looking at the evidence through the filter of the theory of evolution. How can I show that I am not? By openly and honestly forcing the point home that there is evidence that is above either theory, and then try and find creationists that will say "Yes, those fossils are always found with those other fossils" and then the actual debate about explanations can begin.

I plan on starting other threads along the same lines looking at the different areas of evidence, but I think you can see it is a long drawn out process, so one step at time.

#32 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 16 June 2010 - 01:09 PM

Yet, your starting points were all based from Old Earth believers and evolutionist assumption.  Firstly you confused Gap Creationists with YEC's, then when i pointed this out you still can't understand why YEC's don't agree with any of your points.


Once again, you show you are not reading what I write. When did I confuse Gap Creationists with YEC's? I don't even know what a Gap Creationist is. I said these people were creationists and never spoke about how old they thought the world is.

My starting points are either true or false independantly of any theory.

We either find particular fossils with other ones (such as Trilobites only being found in rocks labelled Cambrian -> Permian) or we don't.

If I find a rock and it has icthyosaur bones in it, we can know what other fossils are likely to be found with it. No theory to that, I am talking about a physical rock. It is something that you can find out yourself.

If you told me where you lived, I could tell you what fossils you could find near you and what fossils you would never find. No theory, no presupposition, just the physical fact that certain rocks contain certain fossils. It really is that simple.

#33 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 16 June 2010 - 01:46 PM

Excellent question, and one that deserves a full answer.

The only trap is that I have no idea where it will go.  No creationist  has ever admitted that some fossils are always found with others, and I have asked this same question on many forums.

View Post

As a layman, not specifically interested in any certain ology, I am not really qualified to agree. But I do not doubt that what you say is true, in your points 1-5 - with a disclaimer of 'most of the time', as has been discussed.

Look at my points again, carefully:
1...
2...
3...
4...
5...

Is there anything here that makes any reliance on any theory?
Is there anything that is patently false in what I say?

No.
No, again with the disclaimer.

Ultimately, the evidence of the way fossils are found can be used as evidence.  If we reach that point, I will argue that it shows evolution, whilst you will argue it shows creation.  Until we agree what the evidence we are both looking at is, what is the point in arguing about theories?

OK, we've agreed. And you've rightly said, "I will argue that it shows evolution, whilst you will argue it shows creation."

Which is logically the end of this particular topic! :lol:

><> ><> ><>
I believe God created the universe, which includes the Earth, about 6,000 years ago - I see the evidence and interpret it with that preface.

When I am asked, 'Why are there all of these fossils?'
I answer, 'Mostly, if not entirely, because of the Noahic flood'.

Rapid sedimentation and quick burial just makes sense, scientifically and logically.

You believe the universe is the result of millions/billions of years of random chance happenings - you see the evidence and interpret it with that preface.

When you are asked, 'Why are there all of these fossils?'
You answer, 'Time, death, time, death, time, death'.

Dead things get eaten, decompose and erode. If evolution is true, it simply doesn't make any scientific or logical sense that fossils are in abundance.
><> ><> ><>

So many times (and Cassiterides has done it many times since I've been here already) creationists accuse me of looking at the evidence through the filter of the theory of evolution.  How can I show that I am not?

And I must agree with Cassiterides, you do look at the evidence through the filter of the theory of evolution; you have a presupposition that evolution is true.

By openly and honestly forcing the point home that there is evidence that is above either theory, and then try and find creationists that will say "Yes, those fossils are always found with those other fossils" and then the actual debate about explanations can begin.

I plan on starting other threads along the same lines looking at the different areas of evidence, but I think you can see it is a long drawn out process, so one step at time.

It doesn't need to be a long drawn out process, all you have to do is admit that you believe in evolution. :lol:

#34 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 16 June 2010 - 01:58 PM

Before we go further, I take issue with this:

And I must agree with Cassiterides, you do look at the evidence through the filter of the theory of evolution; you have a presupposition that evolution is true.


There will come a time when I use the evidence that we discuss as evidence, but that is entirely different from looking at the evidence through a filter, because the evidence is objective. This is the whole point.

You have agreed that the evidence suggested so far is true in itself, with no reliance on theory and then you turn round and tell me that I see it through a filter?

No. I look at the evidence objectively. Actually, that isn't right, I look at the evidence harshly. I get bored on atheist websites and forums where everyone agrees. I keep attacking my theories. Possibly not too healthy mentally, but as long as I admit I might be crazy, I can't be...I hope.

My time is spent trying to find evidence against evolution and all the other areas of science and

#35 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 16 June 2010 - 02:03 PM

Sorry, hit the wrong button again.

And I must agree with Cassiterides, you do look at the evidence through the filter of the theory of evolution; you have a presupposition that evolution is true.


Nope, I attack my theories and spend my time trying to find holes in the theory. Why do you think I am here?

I accept the theory of evolution explains the evidence at the moment but I am ready to drop it the soon the right evidence comes along. And I am still looking, and have thought I have found it a couple of times.

You admit that the 5 points are true independantly of any theory and then want me to say I believe in evoluton before continuing? No.

You are more than welcome to call me out if I ever start assuming the theory of evolution when discussing in these threads unless I specifically say that at this point I will use this to discuss what explains the evidence,but even then I will discuss what it means to creationism too in as fair a way as possible.

This could get very interesting.

#36 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 16 June 2010 - 02:05 PM

As you are likely in the process of editing your post, I will answer this part:

Before we go further, I take issue with this:


And I must agree with Cassiterides, you do look at the evidence through the filter of the theory of evolution; you have a presupposition that evolution is true.

View Post

You already stated "I will argue that it shows evolution", so you have no basis to take issue with it.

#37 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 16 June 2010 - 02:20 PM

Nope, I attack my theories and spend my time trying to find holes in the theory. Why do you think I am here?

View Post

Then please accept my apology, I do hope you find the truth in creation.

I accept the theory of evolution explains the evidence at the moment but I am ready to drop it the soon the right evidence comes along.  And I am still looking, and have thought I have found it a couple of times.

The evidence is the same; evolutionists and creationists look at the same stuff.

You admit that the 5 points are true independantly of any theory and then want me to say I believe in evoluton before continuing?  No.

Well, you already said that you "will argue that it shows evolution". That is not subtle at all. I am not interpreting different words and assuming anything, you said "I will argue that it shows evolution".

You are more than welcome to call me out if I ever start assuming the theory of evolution when discussing in these threads unless I specifically say that at this point I will use this to discuss what explains the evidence,but even then I will discuss what it means to creationism too in as fair a way as possible.

This could get very interesting.

I would be very interested in the conclusion a truly unbiased person would document. I just don't think that is anywhere close to possible. This person would have to be isolated from any idealogy, worldview, religion, philosophy, etc..., but still be taught the basics of education. Then, without saying a word, show them the evidence. That would be interesting.

#38 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 June 2010 - 01:57 AM

Well, you already said that you "will argue that it shows evolution". That is not subtle at all. I am not interpreting different words and assuming anything, you said "I will argue that it shows evolution".


ultimately I will, yes, but that's a fair cop.


I would be very interested in the conclusion a truly unbiased person would document. I just don't think that is anywhere close to possible. This person would have to be isolated from any idealogy, worldview, religion, philosophy, etc..., but still be taught the basics of education. Then, without saying a word, show them the evidence. That would be interesting.


You are right there, but it is possible for us to look at things objectively. You have already shown that you have this ability by agreeing to the five points above which are observations. You have stepped away from holding any one particular opinion about it and just looked. That is a talent that is under appreciated.

This is the complicated bit, because now we have to decide what fossils are found where. Firstly, remember that I am not assigning any dating to these rocks and the names are not meant to be prejudicial (even if cambrian means 'life bearing' and pre-cambrian means 'before life', we could call them Bill and Ben and the evidence would still be there)

I will start with: rocks that we call triassic, jurassic and cretaceous contain all the dinosaur, marine reptile and pterodactyl fossils that are found.

Trilobites are only found in rocks from cambrian -> permian.
Ammonites are only found in rocks from cambrian -> cretaceous.

Any pre-cambrian rocks contain very few fossils of any multicellular life.

Quarternary rocks contain the only modern human fossils.

These are just a few, obviously there are millions of species that we could cover, but we won't need to go into that much detail, but we may later introcuce other species and discuss them.

#39 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 June 2010 - 10:42 AM

In this thread I am willing to bend over backwards to find agreement.  I will drop all my presuppositions at the door.  I will not be presenting an evolutionary explanation, or any other (apart from one, see the next time I mention 'Devonian' later).


With all due respect, I find that hard to believe. You'd be the very first Evolutionist-atheist to do it. So we creationists would have to record this date on our calenders.

There will be no attempt to draw any conclusions from this, I will not attempt make any comments about dating of these things.


You may find it odd me being YEC, but I have no problems with age dating. Why?

Science cannot prove that the laws of time, nor the laws of physics stayed the same through out time. In fact they themselves are willing to bend these laws to make their own ideas work. Like a black hole having gravity so strong that it is able to compress all the matter of the universe into a dot. And even stop time. Who's to say that some of these conditions may have existed outside the black hole?

If you wish me to take on the 6,000 year age of the Earth and the idea that the global flood caused all these things, then I will even go that far (though technically that is unfair because it means you get to have theories and explanations whilst I don't).


If you were to actually do this, you'd be the first evo I have ever met willing to step out of his own box to see what it's like to be in the creation box (walk in another person's shoes). Evos are so afraid of this because they think it requires conversion of some sort, which is far from the truth. To become a believer requires conversion, to see it from a creationists view point does not.

This is also why they will demonize the box creationists are in while making their own look totally wonderful. Fear makes one want to never go near the other box, so therefore it works as a good box lock where they lock themselves in never peering outside because the creationist monster might get you. :lol:

The only caveat I have is that I will use geological and biological jargon, such as 'Devonian' or 'Prototaxites'.  In each case I will use these without prejudice.  I merely use them as convenient names.  Now I will give the one explanarion I have allowed myself.  It is called the Devonian because the rocks were first found in Devon, England.

Here are my points again:

1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.
2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .
3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period.
4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites is always found in layers below the Carboniferous Cycadophyta)
5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.

Which of these can we agree on?

View Post


In God's word it says that God aged the universe with His spoken word.

2pet 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Now why do this? If you were God and had to create a working universe in 6 days. Would not the age of each functioning created thing matter in the equation of making it all work?

Example: Would a "new star" (our sun) be better, or one that is aged and is at it's stable point in it's life to where it won't at some point freeze us or fry us? Would a new molten earth support life, or a aged one where it is cool, stable, has a strong magnetic field to deflect solar wind?

You see under creation laws of the first 6 days. Time existed but age was not part of time. So time could pass but "nothing aged". This is because before man sinned "everything was eternal" including how time works.

1) Time + age = not eternal.
2) Time - age = eternal.

So the first 6 days was "time minus age" because sin did not happen yet. Now imagine if you will a dimension where time passes but nothing ever ages. What would be different, and how would it effect the laws we know that aging is a part of?

So you see as long as we try to explain creation with the laws we currently understand it won't make sense. You have to go beyond that and be able to peer into what another dimension would be like where nothing aged, was born, or ever died.

Think of it like like a Star Trek movie. Where the ship open a rift that sucks them into another dimension where time exists, but aging does not. Could they have babies when the cell splitting would not even happen?

So you see age (creating with age already intact) becomes part of the equation for the creation, because the creation was ageless (time passes but nothing ages).

So the earth was created 4.6 billion years old (aged by God's word upon creation of it) 6,000 years ago.

Now what this means is that there are 2 laws to how things can age.

1) Is through passing of time after man sinned.
2) Is by God's word because in a ageless dimension it's required.

Here is an illustration of how, when the laws change, it changes how you do things.

Let's say you were going to cook some rice. The instructions say you have to bring water to a boil and let it cook for so many minutes. Now at sea level, the boiling point of water is around 215 F. Now if you were to enter a a chamber that doubled the barometric pressure (2 atmospheres). Could you cook the rice the same way? Or would you have to adjust to the laws of how water boils at 2 atmospheres?

So evolution working in a dimension where aging always existed seems feasible. But like the boiling water, if you step into a dimension where the laws of aging no longer exists it changes everything.

#40 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 June 2010 - 12:54 PM

Ikester7579, you have done just what I have been trying to avoid, bring theory into it.

All that stuff about the Bible and cooking and times being out because we don't know that the laws of nature have always been the same - I'll go along with all of it. Okay, all the rocks were formed in the last 6,000 years. Fine. That does not change the empirical evidence:

1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.
2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .
3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period.
4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites[/i[ is always found in layers below the Carboniferous [i]Cycadophyta)
5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.

Look at these points. No mention of the laws of nature, no readings from the Bible, no attempt at explaining why these things are as they are. Just the evidence.

Will you do as I have done and take of your preconceptions and say which of the five points you think are true empirically?

You may think I am wrong, and I will listen (there is already the outstanding point of out-of-place fossils for me to deal with) but I will not hear listen to theory or explanation.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users