Jump to content


Photo

Missing? or misinterpreted?


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

#1 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 13 March 2005 - 09:48 AM

Have you ever watched the comedy movie The Gods Must Be Crazy? Someone drops a coke bottle from a plane into a group of native people in Africa who have never seen such a bottle. The whole movie centres around a particular interpretation of what they thought the coke bottle really was. The movie title refers to their belief that ‘the gods’ had sent it. However, it caused so many squabbles about who should use it that they decided that it was an evil thing that must be returned to the gods by dropping it over ‘the edge of the world.’

The bushmen had a totally different way of looking at this bottle from that of the people who dropped it. Why did they get it so wrong? The following exercise will help us understand what was happening.

Consider the following ‘fact.’ Observe it very closely.

Posted Image

Now attempt to answer this question about the fact. What do you think this most likely was originally? What do you think is most likely missing?

Posted Image

Let me help you by offering you some options. See if one of these is one of the possibilities you thought of.

Posted Image

Most people say it was a circle originally, and thus choose option E. However, the correct answer is that nothing is missing, because I drew the ‘fact’ (first illustration pictured above) just as you see it!

This simple exercise teaches us a very important lesson about evidence and interpretation. The point is that ‘facts’ by themselves are essentially meaningless—they all need to be interpreted within a particular philosophical framework.

Let’s consider our ‘fact’ above. I asked a question: ‘What is missing?’ By doing this I gave people a particular presupposition to use when looking at this fact. If someone accepts this presupposition that something is missing, then they look at the fact believing they have to come up with a solution as to what is missing. Thus, the person is now looking at the fact in a particular way—with a specific belief about the ‘fact’ that they have accepted. When people say it was a circle, they have actually interpreted the fact in a particular way, consistent with their way of thinking that is based on the presupposition stating something is missing.

Now the circle interpretation is totally consistent with the person’s way of thinking and is totally consistent with their presupposition—it’s just the interpretation is totally wrong because they started with the wrong presupposition.

Posted Image

What those listening to me should have done was to question my question! In other words, instead of accepting this presupposition without question, they should have asked how I knew something was missing—thus questioning my question! In doing so, a person may then discover that there could be a totally different way of looking at this same ‘fact.’

The problem is that most people have not been trained to even understand that every ‘fact’ has been interpreted by a presupposition that in essence asks a question—let alone whether the right question was asked!

For instance, the public reads almost daily in newspapers and magazines that scientists have dated a particular rock at billions of years old. Most just accept this. However, creation scientists have learned to ask questions as to how this date was obtained: What method was used? What assumptions were accepted to develop this method?

These scientists then question those assumptions (questions) to see whether they are valid or not and determine whether the rock’s age could be interpreted differently. Then the results are published to help people understand that scientists have not proved the rock is billions of years old, and that the evidence can be interpreted in a different way to support a young age.

For example, consider the research from the creationist RATE group concerning the age of zircon crystals in granite (see Radiometric dating breakthroughs). Using one set of assumptions, these crystals could be interpreted to be around 1.5 billion years old, based on the amount of lead produced from the decay of uranium (which also produces helium). However, if one questions these assumptions, one is motivated to test them. Measurements of the rate at which helium is able to ‘leak out’ of these crystals indicate that if they were much older than about 6,000 years, they would have nowhere near the amount of helium still left in them. Hence the originally applied assumption of a constant decay rate is flawed; one must assume, instead, that there has been acceleration of the decay rate in the past. Using this revised assumption, the same uranium-lead data can now be interpreted to also give an age of less than 6,000 years.

The bushmen in the movie had the wrong presupposition when trying to interpret the coke bottle. Because they asked the wrong question, they came up with the wrong answer and thought it was something that was evil and must be disposed of.

All of this should be a lesson for us to take note of the situation when we read the newspaper—we are reading someone’s interpretation of the facts of world history—there very well could be a different way of looking at the same ‘facts.’ One can see this in practice on US television when comparing a news network that’s currently considered fairly liberal (CNN) with one that is more conservative (FOX)—one can often see the same ‘facts’ interpreted differently!

I had the opportunity to explain all of this to a student at a Christian high school who was frustrated with one of her instructors who claimed to believe the Bible was the Word of God.

She said: ‘I wanted to write a paper on Job 40, stating my belief that the creature called “behemoth” mentioned in this passage was a dinosaur living at the time of Job. However, my professor told me that unless I could show clearly documented evidence that dinosaur and human fossils were found together in the same rock layers—and he said no one has ever found this—then, I could not write on dinosaurs and humans living together. He said that scientists had proved dinosaurs lived millions of years before man. What can I say to my professor?’

My response was to suggest this student confront her professor with two issues:

If the Bible really is the Word of God, who knows everything, and is the true record of history (which it is), then all of our thinking must start with God’s Word.

The Bible clearly teaches that God created everything in six literal days. On Day Six, God made land animals (which must have included dinosaurs, as they were land animals) and Adam and Eve.

Therefore, on the basis of God’s authority, we should be prepared to say that dinosaurs and humans lived together, regardless of what the secular world claims.

Now, since God’s Word in Genesis is true history, then any evidence, properly interpreted on this basis, will be consistent with observational science. Whereas if the evidence is interpreted on the basis of the professor’s view, that dinosaurs lived millions of years before man, it should ultimately conflict with observational science and thus show a problem with the interpretation.

Posted Image

I told this student to use the coelacanth fish (pictured right) to explain a very important point to her teacher. For a long time, this fish was believed to have evolved about 340 million years ago and become extinct about 70 million years ago—about the same final extinction ‘date’ claimed for the dinosaurs. This was because fossils of coelacanth fish are found in rocks the same evolutionary age as the dinosaurs, but not rocks ‘dated’ younger. So coelacanths were believed to have died out long before man came on the scene, and thus never lived at the same time as people. However, in 1938, scientists found live coelacanths were being caught off the coast of Madagascar. Decades later, researchers found that Indonesian fisherman had also been selling coelacanths in their fish markets for years.

Now here’s the point. No fossils of coelacanths have ever been found in the same layers as human fossils, but they have been found in the same layers as dinosaur fossils—yet we know coelacanths and humans do live together, because they do so in the present world.

In other words, just because we don’t find fossils of certain creatures (or plants) together with humans in the fossil record, it doesn’t mean they didn’t live together.

Starting with the Bible, and therefore the presupposition that man and dinosaur did live together, we can properly interpret such ‘facts’ (or in this case, really the absence of a fact—thus an argument from silence). But, as my coelacanth example shows, the absence of human fossils in ‘dinosaur rock’ does not support the presupposition that dinosaurs lived millions of years before man.

And it’s not just the coelacanth—there are numerous (in fact hundreds) of examples of plants and animals living today that are represented in the fossil record as being supposedly millions of years old, and yet they are not found fossilized in the same layer as human fossils. Consider the Wollemi pine tree found in 1994 in the Blue Mountains in Australia—it was thought to have become extinct with the dinosaurs, but was then found living alongside people in this present world! Another example is the tadpole shrimp, said to have lived from 250 to 65 million years ago, yet identical shrimps have been found living today.

The reason so many Christian professors (and Christian leaders in general) have rejected the literal creation position is that they have blindly accepted the interpretation of evidence from the secular world, based on man’s fallible presuppositions about history. So they have tried to reinterpret the Bible accordingly.

If only they would start with the presupposition that God’s Word is true. They would find that they could then correctly interpret the evidence of the present, and also show overwhelmingly that observational science over and over again confirms such interpretations. For example, fossil red blood cells and traces of hemoglobin have been found in T. rex bones, although they should have long decomposed if they were millions of years old. Yet the reaction of the evolutionary researchers was a perfect illustration of how evolutionary bias can result in trying to explain away hard facts to fit the preconceived framework of millions of years:

It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: ‘The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?

Whenever you hear a news report that scientists have found another ‘missing link’ or discovered a fossil ‘millions of years old’—try to think about the right questions that need to be asked to question the questions these scientists asked to get their interpretations!

And don’t forget, as Christians, we need to always build our thinking on the Word of the One who has the answers to all of the questions that could ever be asked—the infinite Creator God. He has revealed the true history of the universe in His Word to enable us to develop the right way of thinking about the present and thus determine the correct interpretations of the evidence of the present. We should follow Proverbs 1:7 and 9:10 that teach that fear of the Lord is the beginning of true wisdom and knowledge.

source

ThanX,Louie Buren <><

#2 fishbob

fishbob

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Anchorage, Alaska

Posted 13 March 2005 - 03:40 PM

Forum Guideline 3. What is your point?

By the way, AIG is chocky jam full of misinformation in my opinion. I advise caution when referring to those guys.

#3 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 13 March 2005 - 06:50 PM

Forum Guideline 3.  What is your point? 

By the way, AIG is chocky jam full of misinformation in my opinion.  I advise caution when referring to those guys.

View Post



Ok, thanks for your opinion, but no comment on the article itself?

#4 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 13 March 2005 - 07:13 PM

[quote name='lionheart209' date='Mar 13 2005, 12:48 PM']


Posted Image

Now attempt to answer this question about the fact. What do you think this most likely was originally? What do you think is most likely missing?

Posted Image
[/quote]

The question is misleading; it asks what was this originally, implying something is different.

[/quote]
I had the opportunity to explain all of this to a student at a Christian high school who was frustrated with one of her instructors who claimed to believe the Bible was the Word of God.

She said: ‘I wanted to write a paper on Job 40, stating my belief that the creature called “behemoth” mentioned in this passage was a dinosaur living at the time of Job. However, my professor told me that unless I could show clearly documented evidence that dinosaur and human fossils were found together in the same rock layers—and he said no one has ever found this—then, I could not write on dinosaurs and humans living together. He said that scientists had proved dinosaurs lived millions of years before man. What can I say to my professor?’

My response was to suggest this student confront her professor with two issues:

If the Bible really is the Word of God, who knows everything, and is the true record of history (which it is), then all of our thinking must start with God’s Word.


source

ThanX,Louie Buren <><

View Post

[/quote]

The young lady has the right to submit her paper and the professor has the obligation to fail her when she fails to provide empirical support for her thesis.

#5 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 March 2005 - 08:06 PM

lionheart209

Have you ever watched the comedy movie The Gods Must Be Crazy? Someone drops a coke bottle from a plane into a group of native people in Africa who have never seen such a bottle. The whole movie centres around a particular interpretation of what they thought the coke bottle really was. The movie title refers to their belief that ‘the gods’ had sent it. However, it caused so many squabbles about who should use it that they decided that it was an evil thing that must be returned to the gods by dropping it over ‘the edge of the world.’

The bushmen had a totally different way of looking at this bottle from that of the people who dropped it. Why did they get it so wrong? The following exercise will help us understand what was happening.


An excellent movie. However what did they actually get wrong? the fact that it caused society problems (correct) or the factual origin of the coke bottle (wrong).

Consider the following ‘fact.’ Observe it very closely. <Snip visual experiment> Most people say it was a circle originally, and thus choose option E. However, the correct answer is that nothing is missing, because I drew the ‘fact’ (first illustration pictured above) just as you see it!

This simple exercise teaches us a very important lesson about evidence and interpretation. The point is that ‘facts’ by themselves are essentially meaningless—they all need to be interpreted within a particular philosophical framework.

Let’s consider our ‘fact’ above. I asked a question: ‘What is missing?’ By doing this I gave people a particular presupposition to use when looking at this fact. If someone accepts this presupposition that something is missing, then they look at the fact believing they have to come up with a solution as to what is missing. Thus, the person is now looking at the fact in a particular way—with a specific belief about the ‘fact’ that they have accepted. When people say it was a circle, they have actually interpreted the fact in a particular way, consistent with their way of thinking that is based on the presupposition stating something is missing.

Good stuff so far, one should be on guard against bias in thinking. This is applicable to all who profess to perform research and experimentation and no one is exempt.

What those listening to me should have done was to question my question! In other words, instead of accepting this presupposition without question, they should have asked how I knew something was missing—thus questioning my question! In doing so, a person may then discover that there could be a totally different way of looking at this same ‘fact.’

The problem is that most people have not been trained to even understand that every ‘fact’ has been interpreted by a presupposition that in essence asks a question—let alone whether the right question was asked!

For instance, the public reads almost daily in newspapers and magazines that scientists have dated a particular rock at billions of years old. Most just accept this. However, creation scientists have learned to ask questions as to how this date was obtained: What method was used? What assumptions were accepted to develop this method?

These scientists then question those assumptions (questions) to see whether they are valid or not and determine whether the rock’s age could be interpreted differently. Then the results are published to help people understand that scientists have not proved the rock is billions of years old, and that the evidence can be interpreted in a different way to support a young age.

For example, consider the research from the creationist RATE group concerning the age of zircon crystals in granite (see Radiometric dating breakthroughs). Using one set of assumptions, these crystals could be interpreted to be around 1.5 billion years old, based on the amount of lead produced from the decay of uranium (which also produces helium). However, if one questions these assumptions, one is motivated to test them. Measurements of the rate at which helium is able to ‘leak out’ of these crystals indicate that if they were much older than about 6,000 years, they would have nowhere near the amount of helium still left in them. Hence the originally applied assumption of a constant decay rate is flawed; one must assume, instead, that there has been acceleration of the decay rate in the past. Using this revised assumption, the same uranium-lead data can now be interpreted to also give an age of less than 6,000 years.

I dispute the results on the RATE group on the evidence that the AiG has a statement of faith regarding evidence.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

condemned by their own mouths.

#6 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 13 March 2005 - 10:17 PM

condemned by their own mouths.


ThanX for your opinion.

#7 fishbob

fishbob

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Anchorage, Alaska

Posted 14 March 2005 - 12:52 AM

Forum Guideline 3.  What is your point? 

By the way, AIG is chocky jam full of misinformation in my opinion.  I advise caution when referring to those guys.

View Post


Somebody edited my post. I did not write 'in my opinion'. I don't know how it was done, and I don't know why it was done.

AIG is chocky jam full of misinformation. Period.

#8 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 14 March 2005 - 07:10 AM

Somebody edited my post.  I did not write 'in my opinion'.  I don't know how it was done, and I don't know why it was done.

AIG is chocky jam full of misinformation.  Period.

View Post



In the opinion of everyone qualified to judge the data.

And a firm grasp of reality.

#9 fishbob

fishbob

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Anchorage, Alaska

Posted 14 March 2005 - 12:00 PM

Ok, thanks for your opinion, but no comment on the article itself?



Sections from the answersingenesis.org article, numbered for convenience:

1) ---------------------
For instance, the public reads almost daily in newspapers and magazines that scientists have dated a particular rock at billions of years old. Most just accept this. However, creation scientists have learned to ask questions as to how this date was obtained: What method was used? What assumptions were accepted to develop this method?

These scientists then question those assumptions (questions) to see whether they are valid or not and determine whether the rock’s age could be interpreted differently. Then the results are published to help people understand that scientists have not proved the rock is billions of years old, and that the evidence can be interpreted in a different way to support a young age.

2) ---------------------------
If the Bible really is the Word of God, who knows everything, and is the true record of history (which it is), then all of our thinking must start with God’s Word.

The Bible clearly teaches that God created everything in six literal days. On Day Six, God made land animals (which must have included dinosaurs, as they were land animals) and Adam and Eve.

Therefore, on the basis of God’s authority, we should be prepared to say that dinosaurs and humans lived together, regardless of what the secular world claims.

Now, since God’s Word in Genesis is true history, then any evidence, properly interpreted on this basis, will be consistent with observational science. Whereas if the evidence is interpreted on the basis of the professor’s view, that dinosaurs lived millions of years before man, it should ultimately conflict with observational science and thus show a problem with the interpretation.

3) ---------------------------------------------
The reason so many Christian professors (and Christian leaders in general) have rejected the literal creation position is that they have blindly accepted the interpretation of evidence from the secular world, based on man’s fallible presuppositions about history. So they have tried to reinterpret the Bible accordingly.

If only they would start with the presupposition that God’s Word is true. They would find that they could then correctly interpret the evidence of the present, and also show overwhelmingly that observational science over and over again confirms such interpretations. For example, fossil red blood cells and traces of hemoglobin have been found in T. rex bones, although they should have long decomposed if they were millions of years old. Yet the reaction of the evolutionary researchers was a perfect illustration of how evolutionary bias can result in trying to explain away hard facts to fit the preconceived framework of millions of years:

4) ---------------------------------
Whenever you hear a news report that scientists have found another ‘missing link’ or discovered a fossil ‘millions of years old’—try to think about the right questions that need to be asked to question the questions these scientists asked to get their interpretations!

==========================


Note the discrepancies in logic between these sections?
1 says question assumptions. 2 says start with assumptions. 3 says start with a particular presupposition. 4 says question presuppositions.

I will try to address factual discrepancies later.

#10 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 14 March 2005 - 12:05 PM

Now, since God’s Word in Genesis is true history, then any evidence, properly interpreted on this basis, will be consistent with observational science. Whereas if the evidence is interpreted on the basis of the professor’s view, that dinosaurs lived millions of years before man, it should ultimately conflict with observational science and thus show a problem with the interpretation.


So where is the observational evidence that humans and dinosaurs (non-avian dinosaurs) lived at the same time? You said it yourself, if God's Word in Genesis is true history then the evidence should back it up. Where is the evidence?

#11 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 March 2005 - 01:45 PM

ThanX for your opinion.

View Post

your most welcome.



Replying to the coelacanth question in your first post.

told this student to use the coelacanth fish (pictured right) to explain a very important point to her teacher. For a long time, this fish was believed to have evolved about 340 million years ago and become extinct about 70 million years ago—about the same final extinction ‘date’ claimed for the dinosaurs. This was because fossils of coelacanth fish are found in rocks the same evolutionary age as the dinosaurs, but not rocks ‘dated’ younger. So coelacanths were believed to have died out long before man came on the scene, and thus never lived at the same time as people. However, in 1938, scientists found live coelacanths were being caught off the coast of Madagascar. Decades later, researchers found that Indonesian fisherman had also been selling coelacanths in their fish markets for years.

Now here’s the point. No fossils of coelacanths have ever been found in the same layers as human fossils, but they have been found in the same layers as dinosaur fossils—yet we know coelacanths and humans do live together, because they do so in the present world.

In other words, just because we don’t find fossils of certain creatures (or plants) together with humans in the fossil record, it doesn’t mean they didn’t live together.

Correct, the fossil record is very patchy, and a single fossil can re-write the text books, as your coelacanth example demonstrates, a similar situation has recently arisen with the discover of Homo floresiensis. I should point out that discoveries of this nature are not unexpected and are indeed welcomed.

#12 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 15 March 2005 - 08:46 AM

your most welcome.
Replying to the coelacanth question in your first post.

Correct, the fossil record is very patchy, and a single fossil can re-write the text books, as your coelacanth example demonstrates, a similar situation has recently arisen with the discover  of Homo floresiensis.  I should point out that discoveries of this nature are not unexpected and are indeed welcomed.

View Post


I'm just a little curious as to how much new evidence that disproves evolution and points more to creation has to be discovered, before evolutionists have no choice but to renounce evolution.

I believe its already happened, however some are steadfast on their faith.

#13 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 15 March 2005 - 09:22 AM

I'm just a little curious as to how much new evidence that disproves evolution and points more to creation has to be discovered, before evolutionists have no choice but to renounce evolution.

I believe its already happened, however some are steadfast on their faith.

View Post


I am a little curious on how the coelocanth disproves evolution? Is that what you are claiming?

#14 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 15 March 2005 - 01:52 PM

I am a little curious on how the coelocanth disproves evolution?  Is that what you are claiming?

View Post


I never said the fish alone disproves it, I think the idea of evolution and the alledged evidences it calls evidence disproves evolution better than anything.

The fish being alive today, just shows how evolutionists determine certain information like dating.
The fish was originally dated by evolutionists to be millions of years old, but was found to be living today, they also cliamed it never lived with man, just like the dinosaurs.

But if man lived along with the fish, then this proves to me that the creationist view in dinosaurs walking the Earth with man is valid and supported.

The point is, evolutionists methods in obtaining information such as dating, is sheer guesses, and when disproved, they revise the story and say I can do this, thats how science works.lol

Please note, there are many creationist scientists who do not do that.
Science is blessing if used correctly, and not used along side imagination.
And dishonesty as in, guessing, then calling it a fact, while it is still unsubstantiated.

If evolution is so scientific, why do evolutionists want so badly to call it a fact, when its still a "theory"?
It means as much to them as a religion, because thats what it is.
Every man seeks by nature to serve someone or something, evolutionists choose to worship false science instead of God.

in him, Louie Buren <><

#15 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 March 2005 - 02:23 PM

lionheart209

I'm just a little curious as to how much new evidence that disproves evolution and points more to creation has to be discovered, before evolutionists have no choice but to renounce evolution.

I believe its already happened, however some are steadfast on their faith.

View Post


An out of sequence fossil would be a good start, e.g. Human remains in the Jurassic, mammals in the Devonian, etc. And by out of sequence it means a modern life form in an old geological layer, the reverse situation like the coelacanth, is merely a long lost survivor.

#16 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 15 March 2005 - 02:57 PM

I never said the fish alone disproves it, I think the idea of evolution and the alledged evidences it calls evidence disproves evolution better than anything.


Perhaps you could start another thread with a specific example?

The fish being alive today, just shows how evolutionists determine certain information like dating.


The living species of coelocanth is found nowhere in the fossil record. You must remember that coelocanth is the name of a group of fish, not a single species. It is similar to "cats" being lions, tigers, ocelots, etc. What it shows is a huge problem for creationists. Evolutionists have been saying for years that the fossil record is very incomplete. Creationists, on the other hand, claim that we should see examples of every single transitional and species that ever lived in the fossil record. It looks as if the evolutionists were right. Also, the living species of coelocanth is quite large, around 3 feet long if memory serves. The fossil species of coelocanth were no larger than 15 inches or so. There are also morphological differences, such as the bony girdles found in the lobed fins of the living species.

The fish was originally dated by evolutionists to be millions of years old, but was found to be living today, they also cliamed it never lived with man, just like the dinosaurs.


Read above.

Simply, no fossil remains of coelocanths have been found in strata younger than about 60 million years old. That is still true. The same for dinosaurs. No dinosaurs can be found above the K/T boundary. Evolution does not require that coelocanths or dinosaurs be extinct, it is a conclusion drawn from the fossil record not the theory of evolution.

But if man lived along with the fish, then this proves to me that the creationist view in dinosaurs walking the Earth with man is valid and supported.


It has always been a possibility, but evidence has yet to surface. The only mention of a dinosaur like organism in the Old Testament is described as having external genitalia and a navel, two things that dinosaurs never had.

The point is, evolutionists methods in obtaining information such as dating, is sheer guesses, and when disproved, they revise the story and say I can do this, thats how science works.lol


Start a thread on dating methodologies and I assure you that nothing about these techniques is "guessing". You might as well claim that I am guessing when I call the sky blue.

If evolution is so scientific, why do evolutionists want so badly to call it a fact, when its still a "theory"?


Evolution is both theory and fact. Life has changed over time. That is a fact. How the change was caused is the theory.

It means as much to them as a religion, because thats what it is.
Every man seeks by nature to serve someone or something, evolutionists choose to worship false science instead of God.


Again, what about all of the theistic evolutionists. They accept both God and evolution. You are simply wrong.

#17 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 22 March 2005 - 10:57 AM

Perhaps you could start another thread with a specific example?
The living species of coelocanth is found nowhere in the fossil record.  You must remember that coelocanth is the name of a group of fish, not a single species.  It is similar to "cats" being lions, tigers, ocelots, etc.  What it shows is a huge problem for creationists.  Evolutionists have been saying for years that the fossil record is very incomplete.  Creationists, on the other hand, claim that we should see examples of every single transitional and species that ever lived in the fossil record.  It looks as if the evolutionists were right.  Also, the living species of coelocanth is quite large, around 3 feet long if memory serves.  The fossil species of coelocanth were no larger than 15 inches or so.  There are also morphological differences, such as the bony girdles found in the lobed fins of the living species. 
Read above. 

Simply, no fossil remains of coelocanths have been found in strata younger than about 60 million years old.  That is still true.  The same for dinosaurs.  No dinosaurs can be found above the K/T boundary.  Evolution does not require that coelocanths or dinosaurs be extinct, it is a conclusion drawn from the fossil record not the theory of evolution.
It has always been a possibility, but evidence has yet to surface.  The only mention of a dinosaur like organism in the Old Testament is described as having external genitalia and a navel, two things that dinosaurs never had.
Start a thread on dating methodologies and I assure you that nothing about these techniques is "guessing".  You might as well claim that I am guessing when I call the sky blue.
Evolution is both theory and fact.  Life has changed over time.  That is a fact.  How the change was caused is the theory.
Again, what about all of the theistic evolutionists.  They accept both God and evolution.  You are simply wrong.

View Post


Man is fallible and can accept anything and everything that his fallible mind wants to accept.
But the word of God is infallible and has literal statements of what happened as far as origin of life, for a theistic evolutionists to inject ideas of evolution into Gods word that states otherwise happened is rediculous.

Until evidence does surface on those things, leave it called what it will ultimately remain, imagined speculation.
the sky is actually not blue, evidence for this has been proven, unlike anything involving evolution.
The suns light reflecting off of countless dust particles causes the many different colors of light to spread across the sky, with the color blue being most of the color being spread out, it causes the sky to appear blue.

How has life changed over time? Give me some impiracle evidence of this?
We wear different clothes yes, we have more high tech technology due to accumilated knowledge yes, but we aren't any more inteligent than man was in biblical times, in fact are are probably less inteligent due to years of the genetic mutations effecting our DNA.

What part of the old testiment states that dinosaurs had a naval or genitalia?
I'de appreciate it if you could point that part out to me, scripture?


ThanX

#18 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 22 March 2005 - 11:23 AM

[quote name='lionheart209' date='Mar 22 2005, 10:57 AM']Man is fallible and can accept anything and everything that his fallible mind wants to accept.
But the word of God is infallible and has literal statements of what happened as far as origin of life, for a theistic evolutionists to inject ideas of evolution into Gods word that states otherwise happened is rediculous.[/quote]

How can a fallible man create an infallible translation?

[quote]Until evidence does surface on those things, leave it called what it will ultimately remain, imagined speculation.[/quote]

Such as a global flood, a 6,000 year old earth, the special creation of man . . . need I go on?

[quote]How has life changed over time?  Give me some impiracle evidence of this?[/quote]

Sure. The transition of reptile to mammal is one of the better evidenced transitions in the fossil record. The most dramatic change was seen in the middle ear. Two fo the jaw bones found in the reptillian jaw moved up into the middle ear creating the irreducibly complex middle ear system found in all mammals. The reptillian jaw/ear is on the bottom and the mammalian jaw/ear is on the top. The fossils are arranged by the strata they are found in.

Posted Image


[quote]What part of the old testiment states that dinosaurs had a naval or genitalia?
I'de appreciate it if you could point that part out to me, scripture?
ThanX

View Post

Many claim that the "behemoth" spoken about in Job is in fact a dinosaur. The only problem is that the creature described has a navel, external testicles, and an external ding-a-ling. Dinosaurs had none of these. The behemoth sounds a lot more like a mammal, probably a hippo.

Job 40:15-20 KJV (emphasis mine)

15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.


Tail=ding-a-ling, euphamistically
Stones=testicles, euphamistically

The site software wouldn't let me use the scientific term for the working end of the male anatomy so I used ding-a-ling instead.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users