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

[one.opinion]

47 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Your job was to tell me age, based on those readings.  Tough to convert to time, isn't it?

And your job is to show whether this is a real sample, and not hypothetical.

 

49 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I did this already, but I will supply another.   It's a matter of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation.   So, you have your 'primordial soup' cooking, and which must evolve first?  The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

I must have missed it. Since muscles and blood supplies are present in invertebrates (and bones aren't), it is pretty clear that these structures are not a good example of irreducible complexity. See if you can come up with an example that works (hint - there are examples), and I will show you how it could evolve.

55 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Maybe humans were the last to die, and smartly climbed up to the highest point and drowned last

If you sincerely think animals are too dumb to try to move away from advancing flood water, then you are putting ignorance on full display. What about plesiosaurs and cetaceans? I notice you haven't attempted to provide an explanation there. So smaller dinosaurs have heavier bones than mastodons and elephants? Do you have some data to back up this claim?

 

58 minutes ago, Sparks said:

They have found fully formed birds, along side dinosaurs. 

You'll have to explain how this overturns scientific thought, since scientists believe birds evolved about 150 million years ago and most of the large dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago.

You are trying so hard, and I give you credit for that. It just might help to be more familiar with the data you are arguing against.

[Guest kingdombrat]

How can Evolution be a viable Reason to remove God's explanation for His Creation when we've yet to prove there ever was a Big Bang to begin with.   The concept of the Big Bang is the hinge to Evolution itself.   The circumstances surrounding the Big Bang are the same circumstances for the origins of Evolution.   So, where's the PROOF for the Big Bang at?   This concept is almost 100 years old and no one has even come close to providing substantial evidence it ever happened in the first place.   Without the Big Bang there is [NO] Evolution!

Edited March 29, 2021 by kingdombrat

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, kingdombrat said:

What is problematic is that God claims He took the dust of the Earth, He then spat into the dust He collected from the Earth, then He formed man [we are familiar later on that God classifies us as Clay, which equals dust and spit/water].   Then God claims he caused Adam to sleep while He removed a rib from Adam and created Eve.

 

Not a single so-called professing Believer who proposes Evolution actually accepts the Words of God.   They claim how it is written and how it happened are 2 very different concepts and idealism's.

 

Quote

 

When I observe this from those claiming to believe God, but believes the Bible is generally a fairy tale of concepts to support Evolution, I feel I am looking at Revelation's example of LUKEWARM/RIDING THE FENCE that God will SPEW out examples of humanity!

This is a massive strawman. Very few, if any, adherents to evolution who are Christians "believes the Bible is generally a fairy tale of concepts to support Evolution". You presume the Bible to answer every single question out there. Well, sorry, it simply does not tell us everything. God gave us brains and minds to search out the nature of universe. There is nothing in the Bible that gives us ability to understand electricity and develop technology that allows you and I to communicate on the internet like this.

 

Quote

 

I do not believe someone who believes in Evolution is a true Follower of God.   After all, if you believe the Bible is historical/but not practical you are ADDING/REMOVING from God's Word!   A true Follower of God would never think of doing such a thing.

So it's the ideological purity test? It's not believing and having faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ?

Quote

 

And to do such a thing [be a proponent and advocate for Evolution against the Creation that God Himself claims] is 100% pure BLASPHEMY against God!

I've heard this over and over again for years. I've read enough over the years to see clearly that the transcendent truths of the Creation story are so much more than the basic idea of how things happened.

Edited March 29, 2021 by teddyv
spelling

[Guest kingdombrat]

4 minutes ago, teddyv said:

 

This is a massive strawman. Very few, if any, adherents to evolution who are Christians "believes the Bible is generally a fairy tale of concepts to support Evolution". You presume the Bible to answer every single question out there. Well, sorry, it simply does not tell us everything. God gave us brains and minds to search out the nature of universe. There is nothing in the Bible that gives us axiality to understand electricity and develop technology that allows you and I to communicate on the internet like this.

 

So it's the ideological purity test? It's not believing and having faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ?

I've heard this over and over again for years. I've read enough over the years to see clearly that the transcendent truths of the Creation story are so much more than the basic idea of how things happened.

Why?

4,000 years later, even Peter goes back to the Creation in his own Epistles.   Outside of king Solomon, Paul is the most and highly educated example we have and he claims from his knowledge of the Torah Creation is how we read it, not how you ASSUME it!

Edited March 29, 2021 by kingdombrat

[teddyv]

1 minute ago, kingdombrat said:

Why?

Even Peter goes back to the Creation in his own Epistles.   Outside of king Solomon, Paul is the most and highly educated example we have and he claims from his knowledge of the Torah Creation is how we read it, not how you ASSUME it!

What part are you responding "Why?" to?

[Guest kingdombrat]

There is a Theory to which I believe, that Paul claims what He wrote/said/did was directed first by the Risen Yeshua [the WORD][the CREATOR HIMSELF].

 

So, we have JESUS directing Paul's words.

 

When Paul takes us to the Creation, why doesn't Jesus correct Paul if Evolution is fact?

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, teddyv said:

What part are you responding "Why?" to?

Transcendent truths!

[Guest kingdombrat]

6 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

There is a Theory to which I believe, that Paul claims what He wrote/said/did was directed first by the Risen Yeshua [the WORD][the CREATOR HIMSELF].

 

So, we have JESUS directing Paul's words.

 

When Paul takes us to the Creation, why doesn't Jesus correct Paul if Evolution is fact?

Of all of the Bible Writers, it is Paul's writings in the New Testament we all claim is the EASIEST TO UNDERSTAND because he was a brilliant communicator.   So, if Evolution is [fact], Paul would be the ONE that GOD Himself would choose to explain it.   But that is not what we get.   We get confirmation that Genesis is how it was done!

[teddyv]

1 minute ago, kingdombrat said:

There is a Theory to which I believe, that Paul claims what He wrote/said/did was directed first by the Risen Yeshua [the WORD][the CREATOR HIMSELF].

 

So, we have JESUS directing Paul's words.

Sure. I think outside Jesus' appearance to Paul on the road, most would suggest it was the Holy Spirit directing inspiration, but that's a bit of a semantic perhaps.

1 minute ago, kingdombrat said:

 

When Paul takes us to the Creation, why doesn't Jesus correct Paul if Evolution is fact?

Because it's completely irrelevant?

1 minute ago, kingdombrat said:

 

Transcendent truths!

So in the Creation story, God tells the original hearers and readers that he is the only God, creator of all. This is directly in conflict with the dominant cosmologies of the day. The Creation story tells us that the creation was very good and that humans were the image bearers of God. This too flies in the face of the contemporary creation myths and the role of humans in them. Neither of these truths hinge on any scientific understanding of the natural world. None speak to physical or chemical processes. It sets our role within God's story of redemption which is revealed through the story of Israel, culminating in Christ and the results of that, in which we find ourselves this day.

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

When Paul takes us to the Creation, why doesn't Jesus correct Paul if Evolution is fact?

What if God actually created the process of evolution? God is still the ultimate Creator, He just created in a more intricate manner. The Genesis account definitively tells us important truths - God is Creator, God created mankind in a special way to have fellowship with Him, we are sinful and are stuck with the effects of that sin, God promised a way out of those consequences.

Accepting a 144 hour creation period is not affirmed by the Bible and is absolutely not part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[teddyv]

Trying to move this back to a discussion on fossils, I've attached at page from a paper on a couple geological formations in a part of BC, fairly close to where I live, just as an example of what regional mapping geologists do. This stratigraphic column represents almost 1700 metres of depositional sediments, interrupted by period volcanic activity. You'll note that there are fossiliferous strata noted, which most mapping geologists will use for correlative purposes. 

There are two dates in there, based on U-Pb zircons.

(Just noticed on posting this, that the image is pretty small I'll see if I can improve that)

Edited March 29, 2021 by teddyv