|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mindspawn writes:
As far as I know there's no Biblical reason to think the Bible is consistent.
Also who knows if the classification of clean and unclean kinds regarding ark numbers was the same as the classification system centuries later when referring to clean and unclean kinds from a dietary perspective. Have you a biblical perspective on this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
mindspawn writes: I could say the same. Until you present strong evidence for the origins of most phyla in the Cambrian Explosion, this is just another example of silly evolutionist fantasies. Obviously if most major phyla suddenly appear this points to creation. Uhm, no, it most certainly does not, and as expected it is irrelevant to the topic and just another example of Creationist con games. The issue is the fact that no evidence of any mammals including humans or ANY kind mentioned in the Bible myths has ever been found below the P/T boundary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Hmm, avoiding the question huh
It's only fair that I point the same question back at evolutionists. At least I can claim all modern creatures are rapid adaptations from the original creation of phyla at the Cambrian Explosion. Whether we one day find those niche mammals or they rapidly adapted from those original phyla, creation explains those original kinds. Creation theory is therefore coherent. Clear. With evidence. If you wish to claim that those original phyla which suddenly appeared had ancestors you have to show your evidence, otherwise your theory fails in comparison to creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
mindspawn writes: The bible is not mutually exclusive Of course it is. The two Biblical flood myths disagree on when the flood started, how long it lasted, what critters got killed and what critters got saved. Sorry but thems the facts just like the two Biblical Creation myths are also mutually exclusive. Notice one story says seven pairs of each bird while the other story says only two of each bird. The Genesis 6 story says:
quote: Take two. The Genesis 7 story says:
quote: Take sevens. Just an interesting bible fact some of you may not know is that two , seven and fourteen are not the same number.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I think some people still may not know that the bible refers to 14 animals for some kinds. I'll bet you do think that. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
mindspawn writes: It's only fair that I point the same question back at evolutionists. At least I can claim all modern creatures are rapid adaptations from the original creation of phyla at the Cambrian Explosion. Whether we one day find those niche mammals or they rapidly adapted from those original phyla, creation explains those original kinds. Creation theory is therefore coherent. Clear. With evidence. If you wish to claim that those original phyla which suddenly appeared had ancestors you have to show your evidence, otherwise your theory fails in comparison to creation. Again, all you are doing is the Carny con game of palming the pea, moving the goal posts and continuing to make unsupported assertions. You have presented no evidence that there are an example of original creation at anytime. Creation explains NOTHING. And the fact 9note we are dealing with facts here not fantasy) is that not one single example of evidence of humans or mammals below the P/T boundary has ever been found.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
So you openly criticize a religious book and feel no obligation to back up your criticism with facts. That is an interesting perspective for a participant in a scientific website.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
That is a very emotive answers without any facts.
I have the Sudden appearance of most phyla in the Cambrian Explosion without any hint at where they came from as supporting evidence for creation. You have .... no supporting evidence for evolution. Interesting emotive response. I'm still waiting. Where is your evidence for evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mindspawn writes:
I did provide facts. It's a fact that the Bible calls bats birds. It's a fact that bats aren't birds. All you've provided in rebuttal is, "Maybe the Bible didn't mean what it said when it said it."
So you openly criticize a religious book and feel no obligation to back up your criticism with facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Aaah I do see your point now. The Hebrew word for two in Genesis 6 is "shĕnayim" "adjective, dual masculine/feminine noun" referring to two. ie bring them into the ark in pairs. Male and female pairs.
Genesis 7 then gives more detail, saying 7 male and female pairs for the clean. And one male and female pair for the unclean. Whether its 7 pairs, or one pair, ALL the creatures on the ark were brought onto the ark in pairs as instructed in Genesis 6. And so no contradiction exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Obviously there is not always an exact word in English for every Hebrew word. So then one has to be careful when criticising a translated book thousands of years old without looking up the Hebrew.
The Hebrew word used in Leviticus 11 is "owph" which means flying creatures and even includes insects. So there is no error there in the bible. But isn't this off topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I assume you are not an expert in Hebrew either. Because we do have Hebrew experts that post here.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I have the Sudden appearance of most phyla in the Cambrian Explosion ...
Okay so you've got all phyla but one. What about all classes? Or all orders?
... without any hint at where they came from as supporting evidence for creation.
So, you've never heard of the Ediacaran biota? Try this: Ediacaran biota - Wikipedia These creatures are certainly pre Cambrian Explosion and start to exhibit some of the features of younger phyla.
You have .... no supporting evidence for evolution.
Actually, I just gave you some. Want more, or are you just going to deny it like most YECs do? Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's only fair that I point the same question back at evolutionists. And we can reply: "We have lots of intermediate forms. You do not have a single one of the pre-PT birds or mammals or crocodiles or flowering plants or teleost fish that your hypothesis would predict. Score --- Us: a zillion; You: 0."
At least I can claim all modern creatures are rapid adaptations from the original creation of phyla at the Cambrian Explosion. So you're not so much a Young Earth Creationist as a Really Fast Evolutionist? To what date do you assign the origin of humans? Narrow it down for me, are we talking AD or BC?
If you wish to claim that those original phyla which suddenly appeared had ancestors you have to show your evidence ... To begin with, everything has ancestors. What are you suggesting, that at some point some trilobite or something suddenly appeared in a puff of magic ... ? ... oh, wait, that is what you're suggesting, isn't it? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Aaah I do see your point now. The Hebrew word for two in Genesis 6 is "shĕnayim" "adjective, dual masculine/feminine noun" referring to two. ie bring them into the ark in pairs. Male and female pairs What the text of Genesis actually said was the following:
quote: If the text has the meaning you claim, it could not hinge on the translation of the word two that you have given. Let's note that you describe a translation to 'two' then insist on reading it as pairs. Secondly, your rendering does not fit with the rest of the text as show above. For at least those reasons, it seems to me that your argument is just bad. You appear to be trying to finesse the verse into your intended meaning. And that comes from a person, me, who generally insists that there is no problem with the text as written. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024