Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
dad

A New Look at the Fossil Record

Recommended Posts

If the fossil record only represents a tiny tiny portion and sample of what was alive in the early world, then it is not a record of life on earth! It would only be a record of a tiny tiny part of what lived. God told Adam he would return to dust. If we had our bodies decomposed so fast in the past that we could not leave fossil remains, we would not be in that early record. That does not mean we were not alive. If the nature of the past was different, and man and most animals decomposed extremely fast, then most life on earth would not be in that fossil record. Only the very few creatures that could, for whatever reasons in that different nature in the past would be fossilized.

This means man and most creatures were alive and well at the same time the trilobites or dinosaurs lived, but that most of us could not leave remains.

It doesn't matter why. One could guess that there may have been a large number of bacteria/worms/fungi/little creatures/creatures/insects/etc that specialized in various corpse disposal. Even today there are such natural recyclers around, one example being the snotworm. (they specialize in disposing of dead whale remains)

Looking at Scripture we do notice that life was very different, trees grew in weeks, and people lived nearly 1000 years etc. This indicates to me that nature was different then.

 

 From dust we were created, and to dust we used to return, probably too fast to leave remains.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dad said:

If the fossil record only represents a tiny tiny portion and sample of what was alive in the early world, then it is not a record of life on earth! It would only be a record of a tiny tiny part of what lived.

Correct.

Quote

God told Adam he would return to dust.

Baseless assertion.

Quote

If we had our bodies decomposed so fast in the past that we could not leave fossil remains, we would not be in that early record.

"If", but this post doesn't give any reason to expect or accept such a thing. So either there comes evidence for such rapid decay, or the condition mentioned doesn't apply.

Quote

That does not mean we were not alive.

But it doesn't mean we were alive either.

Quote

If the nature of the past was different, and man and most animals decomposed extremely fast, then most life on earth would not be in that fossil record. Only the very few creatures that could, for whatever reasons in that different nature in the past would be fossilized.

And if it wasn't, then the argument of this post falls flat.

Quote

This means man and most creatures were alive and well at the same time the trilobites or dinosaurs lived, but that most of us could not leave remains.

Nope, that conclusion does not derive from until now unproven) premisse.

Quote

It doesn't matter why. One could guess that there may have been a large number of bacteria/worms/fungi/little creatures/creatures/insects/etc that specialized in various corpse disposal. Even today there are such natural recyclers around, one example being the snotworm. (they specialize in disposing of dead whale remains)

It does matter why (or rather "how"). This posts rests on an unproven premisse that the nature of the past was somehow "different" (unspecified) and derives a conclusion (trilobites, dinosaurs and humans lived together) that does not logically follows.

Quote

Looking at Scripture we do notice that life was very different, trees grew in weeks, and people lived nearly 1000 years etc. This indicates to me that nature was different then.

And looking at the Quran, there was a winged horse.

Quote

 From dust we were created, and to dust we used to return, probably too fast to leave remains.

Which still is.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Perpetual_student said:
Quote

Baseless assertion.

Do you have some basis for asserting that God did not say to Adam what His word says He did say? If not you have the baseless assertion.

Quote

"If", but this post doesn't give any reason to expect or accept such a thing. So either there comes evidence for such rapid decay, or the condition mentioned doesn't apply.

 

There is a lot of reason. One reason is that we know when man  and other creatures were created. You may not like that reason, but that is neither here nor there. Then there is the reason that nature was not the same as now. So you cannot limit how things worked then to how they work now. That is a big reason, since science uses the present for models of the past! Then there is the reason that we know a lot of creatures used to live that do not live today. It is reasonable to assume trilobites or other worms or little creatures  as well as ancient fungi and etc etc etc may have been vastly more efficient at disposal of some remains.

Now let's ask you. Have you any reason to assume this present nature existed in Noah's day? (in scientific imaginary faith based years let's say about 70 million years ago)

5 hours ago, Perpetual_student said:

 

It does matter why (or rather "how"). This posts rests on an unproven premisse that the nature of the past was somehow "different" (unspecified)...

Claiming nature and forces and laws that exist now on earth were the same is an unproven premise. So do not use it. Ever. You want to specify that nature was the same you need more than a belief and a statement!

Scripture (and even to some extent, history) specifies several key differences. We could not use science to 'prove' them any more than science is able to disprove them. In the same way, we could not use science to prove or disprove that there was a same state past on earth.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dad said:

Claiming nature and forces and laws that exist now on earth were the same is an unproven premise. So do not use it. Ever. You want to specify that nature was the same you need more than a belief and a statement!

Scripture (and even to some extent, history) specifies several key differences. We could not use science to 'prove' them any more than science is able to disprove them. In the same way, we could not use science to prove or disprove that there was a same state past on earth.

 

No, I didn't make such a premise. 

The premise of a different past was made in the OP,  that's a positive claim, the burden of proof lies with the OP.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Perpetual_student said:

No, I didn't make such a premise. 

The premise of a different past was made in the OP,  that's a positive claim, the burden of proof lies with the OP.

Then sorry it comes as news to you, but science uses the premise of a same nature and laws on earth in the past. Not sure what you use, since you didn't really say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, dad said:

Then sorry it comes as news to you, but science uses the premise of a same nature and laws on earth in the past. Not sure what you use, since you didn't really say.

That doesn't matter in this discussion. The premisse of a different past was made in the OP, the burden of proof lies thus in providing evidence for this different past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Perpetual_student said:

That doesn't matter in this discussion. The premisse of a different past was made in the OP, the burden of proof lies thus in providing evidence for this different past.

No. The fact that the record of the past in God's word was mentioned in the OP. The fact that science uses a baseless belief in a same state past is also under discussion. This is why you try to shift the attention from your belief set that is fraudulently called science, to the ancient records of the past that science has nothing it is able to say about them.

 

 The fossil record does make perfect sense using the default position and beliefs of Scripture. It does make sense that the nature of earth was different in the past as the bible indicates. No one needs to use the godless belief sytem of so called science when looking at evidence such as the fossil record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dad said:

No. The fact that the record of the past in God's word was mentioned in the OP. The fact that science uses a baseless belief in a same state past is also under discussion. This is why you try to shift the attention from your belief set that is fraudulently called science, to the ancient records of the past that science has nothing it is able to say about them.

 

 The fossil record does make perfect sense using the default position and beliefs of Scripture. It does make sense that the nature of earth was different in the past as the bible indicates. No one needs to use the godless belief sytem of so called science when looking at evidence such as the fossil record.

The so called "fossil record" (Dead Articulated Petrified Creatures found in the ground) ONLY makes sense if the Bible is true and there was a worldwide flood as described in Genesis! 

In order for any organism to fossilize, it quickly must be covered in mud or sediment.. If it ISNT, then its rotting carcass gets scavenged and blown to the wind and that is why we DONT observe fossils forming today! 

But Evolutionits HATE the Bible and what it represents for their life..

People who force themselves to believe in Satan's greatest lie of Evolutionism do so NOT because it has anything to do with science, Otherwise they would simply admit that Dinosaur red blood cells and measurable C14 currently found in Dinosaur remains are CORROBORATING HARD DATA that clearly and unequivocally prove that Dinosaurs did NOT live 100 million years ago! 

This is all because of one reason, the IMPLICATIONS of the Fairytale of Evolutionism happen to align with their philosophical worldview!! 

Here is where they make up stories like...

"Those arent REALLY red blood cells"

THEN WHY IS IT CONSIDERED A SHOCKER!!??

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

OR

"All those samples are contaminated and THAT caused the C14"

THEN THEY NEED TO THROW OUT THE WHOLE RADIOMETRIC DATING MYTH THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SCAMMING THE PUBLIC WITH FOR DECADES!!!!  

But they wont, because they are hypocrites...

 

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Blitzking said:
Quote

The so called "fossil record" (Dead Articulated Petrified Creatures found in the ground) ONLY makes sense if the Bible is true and there was a worldwide flood as described in Genesis! 

Not true. One year could never account for the record, and is in fact a ridiculous idea.
 

Quote


In order for any organism to fossilize, it quickly must be covered in mud or sediment.. If it ISNT, then its rotting carcass gets scavenged and blown to the wind and that is why we DONT observe fossils forming today! 

 There are fossils from many layers and it was not all in one year that they were laid down. How fossils 'would' get laid down today really doesn't apply.

 

Quote


But Evolutionits HATE the Bible and what it represents for their life..

People who force themselves to believe in Satan's greatest lie of Evolutionism do so NOT because it has anything to do with science, Otherwise they would simply admit that Dinosaur red blood cells and measurable C14 currently found in Dinosaur remains are CORROBORATING HARD DATA that clearly and unequivocally prove that Dinosaurs did NOT live 100 million years ago! 

This is all because of one reason, the IMPLICATIONS of the Fairytale of Evolutionism happen to align with their philosophical worldview!! 

Here is where they make up stories like...

"Those arent REALLY red blood cells"

THEN WHY IS IT CONSIDERED A SHOCKER!!??

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

The issue here is dating. The claim of 68 million years is belief based-whether or not the blood is real.

15 minutes ago, Blitzking said:

OR

"All those samples are contaminated and THAT caused the C14"

THEN THEY NEED TO THROW OUT THE WHOLE RADIOMETRIC DATING MYTH THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SCAMMING THE PUBLIC WITH FOR DECADES!!!!  

But they wont, because they are hypocrites...

 

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

 

The issue with radioactive dating is whether the present nature existed or not. Science assumes it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

dad: Not true. One year could never account for the record, and is in fact a ridiculous idea.

Moderator comment: Dad, please try not to barely assert things. If the one year is a, "ridiculous" idea then in this example all you have done is ASSERTED the epithet, "ridiculous". If you want to make an argument as to why it's ridiculous to your mind, then that's fine but you can't come to a site where we as Christian Creationists believe the bible is historically true and state that what it says is a ridiculous idea. Since the word of God is inerrant, a historical account of what God done is not, "ridiculous", what is truly ridiculous is to believe the miracle of life created itself over millions of years.

In the same measure we could thus response EQUALLY; it's "ridiculous" all these things on the below list could be millions of years old;

wobble.jpg

Also, qualified geologists have good explanations for why the flood laid down most of the rocks in a pancake-style fashion we see at grand canyon, with no erosion at the contact points. I know because I have read those explanations and understood them, whereas it seems unlikely you would have given your statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dad said:

No. The fact that the record of the past in God's word was mentioned in the OP. The fact that science uses a baseless belief in a same state past is also under discussion. This is why you try to shift the attention from your belief set that is fraudulently called science, to the ancient records of the past that science has nothing it is able to say about them.

this is the major complain i have against dawkins and others of his ilk.

they try to portray science as some kind of "anti god" paradigm, and it isn't.

science, at its core, is a method of ascertaining a model of our reality.

it is very good at determining things that are tangible, not so good at things that are not.

time is one such intangible, and science can't really tell you what it is.

god is another intangible that science simply cannot deal with.

there are quite a few things like this that science simply can't deal with effectively.

dawkins and others like him takes this opportunity to turn science into some kind of anti religious paradigm and it simply isn't true.

i think it is disgusting how science is being used in this manner.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, what if said:
Quote

 

this is the major complain i have against dawkins and others of his ilk.

they try to portray science as some kind of "anti god" paradigm, and it isn't.

 

 

Let's weigh that in with God's word and see how it checks out. God told us that man was created before woman, for example, as well as the earth before the stars. Does science agree?
 

Quote


science, at its core, is a method of ascertaining a model of our reality.

 

The so called reality science offers is not reality at all. It is lying fables.
 

Quote


it is very good at determining things that are tangible, not so good at things that are not.

 

Yet it mouths off day and night about where man and his universe came from in a very very very very wicked way.


 

Quote


time is one such intangible, and science can't really tell you what it is.

 

Great. Yet they try!
 

Quote


god is another intangible that science simply cannot deal with.

 

Much like a horse that ran away from a watering pool can't drink from that pool any more. Science purposely omitted God from it's knowledge and methods.

Quote


there are quite a few things like this that science simply can't deal with effectively.

dawkins and others like him takes this opportunity to turn science into some kind of anti religious paradigm and it simply isn't true.

i think it is disgusting how science is being used in this manner.

 

OK. But origins sciences are considered part of what is called science. How could one use so called sciences that falsely claim to deal in origins? All one can do is flush.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

Moderator comment: Dad, please try not to barely assert things. If the one year is a, "ridiculous" idea then in this example all you have done is ASSERTED the epithet, "ridiculous". If you want to make an argument as to why it's ridiculous to your mind, then that's fine but you can't come to a site where we as Christian Creationists believe the bible is historically true and state that what it says is a ridiculous idea. Since the word of God is inerrant, a historical account of what God done is not, "ridiculous", what is truly ridiculous is to believe the miracle of life created itself over millions of years.

In the same measure we could thus response EQUALLY; it's "ridiculous" all these things on the below list could be millions of years old;

wobble.jpg

Also, qualified geologists have good explanations for why the flood laid down most of the rocks in a pancake-style fashion we see at grand canyon, with no erosion at the contact points. I know because I have read those explanations and understood them, whereas it seems unlikely you would have given your statement.

Ok. So if Adam/creation was something like 6100 years ago (or whatever) then why would all fossils and layers be due to one year? Would there be no deposition for the other 6099 years?

 I AM a Christian creationist by the way.  YEC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dad,

Quote

OK. But origins sciences are considered part of what is called science. How could one use so called sciences that falsely claim to deal in origins? All one can do is flush.

origins sciences?

there are various ideas on how things came to be.

but that's all they are, ideas.

the current model is the "big bang" model but it has various problems.

all science can really do is ascertain what is being observed today and try to fit it all together into some coherent model.

where it all came from, or where it will end up, is unknown.

 

as to the origins of life, it too has so far eluded a solution.

science has no idea what life is except to point to a living cell and say "that's life".

science has no idea how life arrived here but it HAS concluded it didn't happen by any kind of "random chemistry".

IOW, science has basically come to the conclusion that life DID NOT simply arise from a pond of goo.

so, what exactly is the story here?

for a scientist, this sort of thing is enough to drive a person crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dad said:

Ok. So if Adam/creation was something like 6100 years ago (or whatever) then why would all fossils and layers be due to one year? Would there be no deposition for the other 6099 years? 

 I AM a Christian creationist by the way.  YEC.

"Ok. So if Adam/creation was something like 6100 years ago (or whatever) then why would all fossils and layers be due to one year? Would there be no deposition for the other 6099 years?"

 

That's right!  You are starting to catch on!  All of the layers were laid down during the one year long Noah's flood.. The flood is what caused all of the deposition!! Hydrologic sorting did the trick! We Dont see any such "deposition" today and we wont either as it was a ONE TIME CATACLYSMIC EVENT! I'm glad Mike came to point it out as I was about to get harsh with you for your last post which was written as if the person writing it was some kind of evolutionist...  Very confusing to say the least..

 

" I AM a Christian creationist by the way.  YEC."

Then please start acting like one! Fair enough?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blitzking said:

That's right!  You are starting to catch on!  All of the layers were laid down during the one year long Noah's flood.. The flood is what caused all of the deposition!! Hydrologic sorting did the trick! We Dont see any such "deposition" today and we wont either as it was a ONE TIME CATACLYSMIC EVENT! I'm glad Mike came to point it out as I was about to get harsh with you for your last post which was written as if the person writing it was some kind of evolutionist...  Very confusing to say the least..

 

" I AM a Christian creationist by the way.  YEC."

Then please start acting like one! Fair enough?

Yeah it can be a bit confusing. Perhaps dad could give us a brief summary of his beliefs since it's been so long since he last came here. I am guessing he believes in a flood but believes it didn't affect geology perhaps?

That's a shame, if he were only to see how many articles geologist creation scientists have written in support of the flood and the geology. 

Just one example is flat gaps. The pancake-layers in the grand canyon are a good example. Between the Coconino sandstone and hermit shale is a gap which is perfectly flat. Here the evolutionist argues about 7 million years passed but there is no erosion at the gap at all. In another place beneath the Cretaceous cedar, there is a 50 million year flat gap with no erosion. And worst of all at the great conformity between the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian rock there is a relatively flat gap between the rocks representing those eons, at grand canyon where there is a "billion" years of time they impose from their imagination, and there is no erosion.

That is a LUDICROUS scenario for millions of years of geology. The obvious cause of all of the flat gaps and most parsimonious explanation is that they were quickly laid down by the flood from various inundations and very quickly so that there was no time for any erosion to occur. 

As for yearly sedimentation rates or varves, they in no way could stack the mega-sized rock layers we see in the rock record dad. How on earth would hundreds of metres of a type of sandstone or limestone or mudstone or whatever, be explainable by varves? Why on earth would a certain type of rock persist such as sandstone, for hundreds of thousands of years, then neatly stack chalk on it, or limestone or whatever. Do you see that today in annual varves? For example am I collecting sandstone in my garden since my garden has been here since 1960? :gotcha: ;) 

There are also things preserved throughout many, "varves", sort of like miniature polystrate fossils. Leaves that were not blown away. Perhaps evolutionary deep time SUSPENDS the wind for a number of years, and SUSPENDS erosion and entropy for millions of years. Different nature indeed, the invocation of science-fictional nature on behalf of Darwin!:rotfl3:

Dad, please read this;

Quote

A common argument against the Bible involves varves—rock formations with alternating layers of fine dark, and coarse light sediment. Annual changes are assumed to deposit bands with light layers in summer and dark layers in winter. It is reported that some rock formations contain hundreds of thousands of varves, thereby ‘proving’ the earth is much older than the Bible says.9 But the assumption that each couplet always takes a year to form is wrong. Recent catastrophes show that violent events like the Flood described in Genesis can deposit banded rock formations very quickly. The Mount St Helens eruption in Washington State produced eight metres (25 feet) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!10 And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit about a metre (3–4 feet) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field.....When sedimentation was studied in the laboratory, it was discovered that fine bands form automatically as the moving water transports the different sized particles sideways into position.12 Surprisingly, the thickness of each band was found to depend on the relative particle sizes rather than on the flow conditions.13 A layered rock (diatomite) was separated into its particles, and when redeposited in flowing fluid, identical layers formed

From this link;

https://creation.com/geology-and-the-young-earth

and;

Quote

Much is often made of the Green River varves,9 in Wyoming, USA. But these bands cannot possibly be annual deposits because well-preserved fish and birds are found all through the sediments.

When sedimentation was studied in the laboratory, it was discovered that fine bands form automatically as the moving water transports the different sized particles sideways into position.

It is unthinkable that these dead animals could have rested on the bottom of the lake for decades, being slowly covered by sediment. Their presence indicates catastrophic burial. It is often claimed that the fish and birds remained in prime condition at the bottom of the lake because the water was highly alkaline and this preserved their carcasses.15 Yet highly alkaline water causes organic material to disintegrate, and that is why alkaline powder is used in dishwashers!

 

You really need to read articles like this Dad, to be informed about what the evidence really means rather than what evolutionists have TOLD YOU it means.

(I'll leave it there, so as to not take it off topic but I believe a brief explanation was necessary.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, what if said:

dad,

origins sciences?

there are various ideas on how things came to be.

but that's all they are, ideas.

the current model is the "big bang" model but it has various problems.

all science can really do is ascertain what is being observed today and try to fit it all together into some coherent model.

where it all came from, or where it will end up, is unknown.

 

as to the origins of life, it too has so far eluded a solution.

science has no idea what life is except to point to a living cell and say "that's life".

science has no idea how life arrived here but it HAS concluded it didn't happen by any kind of "random chemistry".

IOW, science has basically come to the conclusion that life DID NOT simply arise from a pond of goo.

so, what exactly is the story here?

for a scientist, this sort of thing is enough to drive a person crazy.

"For a scientist, this sort of thing is enough to drive a person crazy"

Only for the scientists who try to keep on shoving square pegs into round holes and try to explain away our existence WITHOUT the need for the creative input of a Supernatural Intelligence Agent (God) ..

Scientists like THIS for example..

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, FOR WE CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR "

 

Professor Richard Lewontin, geneticist and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LizaMiller said:

I am not an expert on this, but the truth is that recently I was curious enough to watch some videos in Youtube (you know, typical science divulgation) explaining how just a cell it works... and I have to be honest saying that I got quite shocked about it...

What I am trying to say? It was just crazy complex what is going on inside of one of a so small thing as a cell... really, it was like a perfect machine working perfectly synchronized knowing exactly what is needed to be done... just in one cell... and we have billions in our body... that made me think... it is really difficult to believe it was just by random... it must be something superior creating that... right?

Absolutely. And many reasonable people feel the same.

In fact it's refreshing to hear an agnostic say something like this. I have known many agnostics on line, only really two, you and another that posted here seemed to even be able to think how you have just thought here. But I came across dozens and dozens and dozens of them that just basically accepted evolution theory.

Probably because they felt peer pressured and would feel silly and worry about being associated with creationists.

But as you have just said, even the cell itself is so amazing in it's design. 

Indeed, we find in the cell everything we find in human designed things in terms of the features of intelligence.

All the usual features of intelligent thought is found in life. Here are those features;

Specified complexity, information, contingency planning, correct materials, function, goals, purpose. 

We can even compare. Let us for an easy example look at our legs. Or our eyes. But first let's look at a car's mechanics. Every part in the car is placed in the correct position, and is made of the correct materials. A car's brakes will have the correct brake disc or pad material, good for braking. A chassis won't be made from jello for obvious reasons, just as a windscreen has to be glass to see through rather than something opaque. It has to be transparent.

Well it's the same with our eyes, we have to have a transparent layer on the eyeball so that light can be transmitted to the retina. Our bones are made of the correct materials, like a chassis.

Everything in our leg, every part, all of the parts, are all placed in a way that allows the end goal to be achieved, that of walking legs. It is the same with the car, every part is arranged for the end goal of a driving vehicle.

CONCLUSION: We only find intelligently designed features in two places in the whole universe. 1. In lifeforms. 2. In human designs.

We believe as Christians, that this is because life was designed/created by God. 

Conclusion 2. You are clearly just an honest person that is "wondering" about these things honestly and innocently. I commend you for that, and hope you can find the right answers, and can find out all of the things that the world has hidden from you because the world tells us the LIE, and that lie is that we are all just accidental evolutionary slime that exists by accident!

In fact the truth is that God loves you, and Jesus Christ is the truth, and He died for our sins, and your sins. But of course, that is our position as Christians, I am not forcing you to believe this. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LizaMiller said:

 It was just crazy complex what is going on inside of one of a so small thing as a cell...

yeah, you are getting close to the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

We can even compare. Let us for an easy example look at our legs. Or our eyes. But first let's look at a car's mechanics. Every part in the car is placed in the correct position, and is made of the correct materials. A car's brakes will have the correct brake disc or pad material, good for braking. A chassis won't be made from jello for obvious reasons, just as a windscreen has to be glass to see through rather than something opaque. It has to be transparent.because the world tells us the LIE, and that lie is that we are all just accidental evolutionary slime that exists by accident!

the cell can best be envisioned by a computer and the program it runs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, what if said:

dad,

origins sciences?

there are various ideas on how things came to be.

but that's all they are, ideas.

the current model is the "big bang" model but it has various problems.

all science can really do is ascertain what is being observed today and try to fit it all together into some coherent model.

where it all came from, or where it will end up, is unknown.

 

as to the origins of life, it too has so far eluded a solution.

science has no idea what life is except to point to a living cell and say "that's life".

science has no idea how life arrived here but it HAS concluded it didn't happen by any kind of "random chemistry".

IOW, science has basically come to the conclusion that life DID NOT simply arise from a pond of goo.

so, what exactly is the story here?

for a scientist, this sort of thing is enough to drive a person crazy.

Right, they do claim to deal in issues about where life and the universe came from.  The way science models the past is by assuming the present is the key to the past. If the past was fundamentally different in nature and laws, then all ages and models that science uses are out the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, what if said:

the cell can best be envisioned by a computer and the program it runs.

I think we can agree on that mostly. I would obviously argue there has to be a designer/creator of the program and the computer. 

But I am not really trying to argue the creationist case here as such. I think it's good you can be honest enough to admit this, I don't think many atheists could ever admit to facts that were more favourable to a designer. Certainly it is my experience that agnostics are much more objective than atheists and don't always have a motive of unbelief

I was a bit agnostic before I came to belief, but that was in the 1990s now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dad said:

Right, they do claim to deal in issues about where life and the universe came from.  The way science models the past is by assuming the present is the key to the past. If the past was fundamentally different in nature and laws, then all ages and models that science uses are out the window.

i can't imagine a time or place where 2+2 doesn't equal 4.

also, i'm not on this site to argue for or against a god.

i am basically here to kick the modern synthesis in the face.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

I think we can agree on that mostly. I would obviously argue there has to be a designer/creator of the program and the computer.

 

and that right there is the dilemma mike.

even science had to concede that life didn't arise by some random process, i've posted the link stating such.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms