The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

As far as I know there's no Biblical reason to think the Bible is consistent.

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.

Hmm, avoiding the question huhIt'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.

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:

---

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

---

Take two.The Genesis 7 story says:

quote:

---

Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

---

Take sevens.Just an interesting bible fact some of you may not know is that two , seven and fourteen are not the same number.

I'll bet you do think that.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.

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.

I assume you are not an expert in Hebrew either. Because we do have Hebrew experts that post here.

Okay so you've got all phyla but one.What about all classes? Or all orders? So, you've never heard of the Ediacaran biota?Try this:Ediacaran biota - WikipediaThese creatures are certainly pre Cambrian Explosion and start to exhibit some of the features of younger phyla. 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.

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." 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? 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.

What the text of Genesis actually said was the following:

quote:

---

You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

---

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.