Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[The Barbarian]

On 4/29/2021 at 1:33 AM, kingdombrat said:

And the idealism that the building block to life were basic uranium deposits seems to be nowhere in line with Scripture anywhere.

Nor in science texts.   You've been misled about that.   Not only is the origin of life not part of evolutionary theory, no scientist thinks uranium started it off.   God assures us that life was brought forth by the earth, but He didn't say it was uranium.

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

27 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Nor in science texts.   You've been misled about that.   Not only is the origin of life not part of evolutionary theory, no scientist thinks uranium started it off.   God assures us that life was brought forth by the earth, but He didn't say it was uranium.

 

Genesis 1:2 claims the Earth was Void and without Form.   The term FORM here is key because in Genesis 2:5-8 & 19 uses this [same form] to explain man.

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Genesis 2:7  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul

Genesis 2:8  And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed  

Genesis 2:19  And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.    

 

 

Interesting, we see the Earth is no longer [Formless] but God wants someone to till the ground.   He causes water to spring forth and then from the wet dust He [FORMS] man.  

 

So we have God Forming a Formless Earth and we have God Forming man and verse 19 God Forming every beast and fowl. 

 

Plus, after God FORMS man, He breathes in man's nostrils life.   So, man is a FORM, not alive, just a FORM/MOLD/CREATION. Then God breathes life into His nostrils.  

 

 

Evolution is life from word GO!

But man is a FORM/MOLD/CREATION first before man becomes life. Man is DEAD at Creation, he is just a FORM, not a LIFE.

^

That is where Evolution [DOES NOT] align with Scripture!  

 

In Evolution, once the pond of components become living microorganisms, every process after is still a continuation of LIFE.  

 

But God Creates man DEAD as a FORM.

Then God breathes LIFE.

 

So clearly, Evolution and the WORD of God do not align, because Evolution is a [CONTINUAL PROCESS] of 1 life form to the next and in God's Process, man is FORMED DEAD with no life!  

 

Evolution has no interruptions and is 1 life form after another.

God's Creation is an INTERRUPTION of man formed DEAD and then is given LIFE.

 

The 2 DO NOT align or match up.

 

So NO, Evolution does not describe how God created LIFE!

Edited June 5, 2021 by kingdombrat

[Guest kingdombrat]

48 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

Genesis 1:2 claims the Earth was Void and without Form.   The term FORM here is key because in Genesis 2:5-8 & 19 uses this [same form] to explain man.

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Genesis 2:7  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul

Genesis 2:8  And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed  

Genesis 2:19  And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.    

 

 

Interesting, we see the Earth is no longer [Formless] but God wants someone to till the ground.   He causes water to spring forth and then from the wet dust He [FORMS] man.  

 

So we have God Forming a Formless Earth and we have God Forming man and verse 19 God Forming every beast and fowl. 

 

Plus, after God FORMS man, He breathes in man's nostrils life.   So, man is a FORM, not alive, just a FORM/MOLD/CREATION. Then God breathes life into His nostrils.  

 

 

Evolution is life from word GO!

But man is a FORM/MOLD/CREATION first before man becomes life. Man is DEAD at Creation, he is just a FORM, not a LIFE.

^

That is where Evolution [DOES NOT] align with Scripture!  

 

In Evolution, once the pond of components become living microorganisms, every process after is still a continuation of LIFE.  

 

But God Creates man DEAD as a FORM.

Then God breathes LIFE.

 

So clearly, Evolution and the WORD of God do not align, because Evolution is a [CONTINUAL PROCESS] of 1 life form to the next and in God's Process, man is FORMED DEAD with no life!  

 

Evolution has no interruptions and is 1 life form after another.

God's Creation is an INTERRUPTION of man formed DEAD and then is given LIFE.

 

The 2 DO NOT align or match up.

 

So NO, Evolution does not describe how God created LIFE!

I've rechecked my notes from when I studied Evolution Biology and there [ARE NO] interruptions from evolving 1 species to another.

 

So clearly, how God FORMED MAN, man is still dead, man is not a life yet nor alive yet. There is an [OUTRIGHT INTERRUPTION] in the process of man being FORMED to when man becomes a LIFE FORM.

 

To claim Evolution explains the Word of God has to therefore be UNTRUE!

Edited June 5, 2021 by kingdombrat

[Amigo42]

On 3/18/2021 at 12:52 PM, Sparks said:

Not long. 

Incidentally, you can make your own amber in minutes with tree sap, tin foil and a torch.   Sap is highly flammable so be very careful doing it.  Instead of inserting an insect or a bird feather, why not put in a small picture of Trump?  Then throw it on a beach for a scientist to find.  I guarantee you, some scientist will fall for it, and claim Trump is 'millions of years old.'

I love it.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Amigo42

[Marathoner]

On 2/2/2021 at 10:41 PM, Riverwalker said:

A thing is evidence of itself. Fossils prove there are fossils, but that is all they do. If you go any further than the evidence allows, then you have left the realm on proof, and entered the fantasy world of Surmisal. Trying to explain a theory by leaping from one fact to supposition is like diving into a pool with no water. It might be fun ...for a little bit

Arguing against a theory without understanding the theory in question is like walking on the branch of a tree without checking to see if the branch will bear your weight. You're 80 years behind modern research and theory, my friend. 

Two misconceptions/errors I've come across in this topic as it pertains to the modern synthetic theory of biological evolution:

The various hypotheses of abiogenesis are not part of modern evolutionary theory. Why? Because theory is supported by evidence and subjected to exhaustive peer-review --- it survives a grueling gauntlet of nullification --- whereas hypothesis is untested conjecture. Notions of abiogenesis have been around for roughly a century. Hot primordial soup, anyone? How about hot, electrified primordial soup? Conjecture. 

The field of epigenetics examines how modification of gene expression occurs in real-time without alteration of the genome. The axiom that genetic mutation is generally not beneficial holds true; genes are not required to experience mutation in order to affect incremental, substantive change in a lineage of biological organisms over vast spans of geological time. No, not when controller genes are responsible for modifying their expression. Controller genes were first discovered in 1961. 

With all of that said, the following factors influence the genome of biological organisms in this cosmos the Lord created: solar radiation... illness... diet... environmental stressors... toxic substances... and even psychological trauma. Can the end result of epigenetic modification eventually result in what appears to be genetic mutation to the modern eye? No doubt.

There's another axiom of God's creation to consider: that which is not used is reabsorbed and otherwise discontinued. Case in point: individuals who lose their teeth experience bone loss in the dental cavity. The bone is no longer needed to support dentition and so it's reabsorbed by the body.   

Modern evolutionary theory is far more nuanced than the examination of fossil evidence, my friends.  
 

[Sparks]

3 hours ago, Marathoner said:

Modern evolutionary theory is far more nuanced than the examination of fossil evidence, my friends.

Yeah, Irreducible Complexity makes the fossil 'evidence' irrelevant before you can even point towards fossils as evidence. 

It seems like your theological evolution belief is exactly as every Evolutionist believes (atheist, agnostic, secular, or whatever), but when your theory bottoms out and is shown to be impossible, you can just add a +God to your theory. 

Like this:

Abiogenesis +God. 

Evolution is from a single ancestor, undirected mutation, and natural selection + God.

Evolution theory is a false doctrine and conflicts with what the Bible tells you happened. 

You had an eye witness to creation tell you what He did.  Why do you trust man's speculation about what He did, over what He told you He did?

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Yeah, Irreducible Complexity makes the fossil 'evidence' irrelevant before you can even point towards fossils as evidence. 

This is not true, as I’ve already explained to you. Irreducibly complex structures occur all throughout God’s creation. However, there is clear evidence that these can arise by evolution.

5 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You had an eye witness to creation tell you what He did.  Why do you trust man's speculation about what He did, over what He told you He did?

The Genesis account contains multiple elements that should not be read literally. (For example, it is unlikely God brought every wild animal to Adam for naming. One representative at best. There are several other examples.) There is ample reason to believe that the days of creation are not necessarily literal 24 hour days, and not necessarily sequential. The manner of creation is not the point of Genesis 1-3. The Person of creation is.

[Uri]

Fossils are evidence of a flood.

[Uri]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This is not true, as I’ve already explained to you. Irreducibly complex structures occur all throughout God’s creation. However, there is clear evidence that these can arise by evolution.

The Genesis account contains multiple elements that should not be read literally. (For example, it is unlikely God brought every wild animal to Adam for naming. One representative at best. There are several other examples.) There is ample reason to believe that the days of creation are not necessarily literal 24 hour days, and not necessarily sequential. The manner of creation is not the point of Genesis 1-3. The Person of creation is.

This sounds like something once uttered in a garden.

 

There is no evidence of man gaining knowledge that upends what is written.

Adaptation is demonstrably not evolution. Science, being the study & naming of God's creation, was given the postulate of observation and reorder of theory to confirm.

Nothing has ever done this in regards to evolutionary theory.

The most powerful being ever created has limited time to convince mankind to repeatedly put the creator under the mold, as if momentary lapses of perceived enlightenment from a created soul can fathom a neverending all-supreme being's timeline or composition within the parameters of their environment. 

 

There is nothing new under the sun.

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, Uri said:

Adaptation is demonstrably not evolution.

Evolution at its root, is heritable change in a population over time. So adaptation, at least at the genetic level, is evolution.

Of course, there are different uses of the term, but that is evolution at the most basic level.