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

[teddyv]

Just now, kingdombrat said:

The entire Book is about whether to Question God or not from his wife to his friends all claiming he should [curse God] and die.   The last 4 Chapters is direct communication with God and Job/Friends.   So the dialogue is open,   But this verse in Job suggests that God believes Job understands [which is why I belieye Job understands as well].

My understanding is that most scholars see the book of Job as primarily a theodicy, examining the age-old question of why bad things happen to good people (it's more than that of course). Questioning God is not the problem. Ascribing blame to God or some hidden sins of Job to his misfortune.

But this is a great digression from the thread. It would be interesting to take up elsewhere.

Just now, kingdombrat said:

:

No, but I can use chemicals to give an appearance of age to both rock and metal.   And i can misuse chemicals to age test samples.   I am not claiming all do it [just some]!

You would have to be saying that virtually all are doing it because there is only a vanishingly small group of people that contest the dominant theories. But that is ultimately an appeal to the people, and does not suggest a market on the truth. It still should cause us to pause and seriously attempt to understand why these theories have become the leading theories.

[one.opinion]

8 minutes ago, Sparks said:

These are just a few samples of how opposite the religion of evolution to God's creation.

These are incidental to the theological points that I listed earlier. We can agree on the important theological points, while disagreeing on the minutiae. If figurative language is used in Genesis as I believe it is, it is hardly the only portion of the Bible that does so.

[Sparks]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

These are incidental to the theological points that I listed earlier. We can agree on the important theological points, while disagreeing on the minutiae. If figurative language is used in Genesis as I believe it is, it is hardly the only portion of the Bible that does so.

It's not figurative language in Genesis.  The whole religion of Darwinian Evolution is the opposite of what God said He did. 

Freewill allows you to believe whatever you want, of course.  Some are fooled by the gap theory, and others.

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, Sparks said:

It's not figurative language in Genesis.

It's not figurative because you say so? Forgive me if I need a better reason to accept that as truth.

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

14 minutes ago, teddyv said:

You would have to be saying that virtually all are doing it because there is only a vanishingly small group of people that contest the dominant theories. But that is ultimately an appeal to the people, and does not suggest a market on the truth. It still should cause us to pause and seriously attempt to understand why these theories have become the leading theories.

Prominence is the reason why!   People have certain specifics they use to suggest what they believe.  Geologist use rock formations/sediment/etc.   Metallurgist use metal combinations to form stronger tensile points.  Biologist use microscopes to observe.   Chemist use Mathematics to achieve their outcomes.   It's all about Prominence!

[The Barbarian]

On 3/26/2021 at 9:37 AM, kingdombrat said:

This would be acceptable in my opinion if the feet were not reported by the discoverer himself to be almost 2 miles away and 200 feet into a deeper stratus than where the bulk of Lucy's remains were factually discovered.   That is illogical at best to connect the 2.   

But as you learned, that never happened.  It was creationist hoax.  In fact, even in the hoax, the creationist was pretending that it was femur, not bones from a foot.

 

On 3/26/2021 at 10:22 AM, kingdombrat said:

 And even without feet, there's a conclusion her feet would have been FLAT

Yep.   That was easy, because the ankle bone showed that it was. Just as it does in humans.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

50 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

A spiritual perfection is no different than an amoeba having a brain and deciding to grow legs, fins, gills, lungs, arms!  It's all a MYTH!

It is.   You described the typical creationist myth about evolution.   One of the hardest myths to get over, apparently.

 

[The Barbarian]

32 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

No, Scientific Evidence suggests the Amoeba, just surviving in its own state of reality, had to adapt because conditions changed.   

Still does.   Not long ago, a species of amoeba evolved an endosymbiosis with a species of bacteria.   Now, neither the bacteria nor the Amoebas can live without the other.  It's remarkably like the endosymbiosis we have with mitochondria.

No brain needed, though.

34 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

Ultimately, to adapt is not by accident, it's by the processing what is required to survive. 

So, how do you think the amoeba and those bacteria "processed" the problem?   Be specific.

35 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

So, without claiming it, Science is still claiming the Ameoba had a brain in order to choose to adapt. 

No wonder you hate science.   If I thought it was like that, I'd hate it, too.  People who think they hate science, have no idea what it's about.

[teddyv]

31 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

Prominence is the reason why!   People have certain specifics they use to suggest what they believe.  Geologist use rock formations/sediment/etc.   Metallurgist use metal combinations to form stronger tensile points.  Biologist use microscopes to observe.   Chemist use Mathematics to achieve their outcomes.   It's all about Prominence!

Sorry, for my denseness, but what do you mean by 'prominence'? Do you mean personal glory or fame of those studying these things?

[Sparks]

28 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

It's not figurative because you say so? Forgive me if I need a better reason to accept that as truth.

 

It's not me who says so, it's HE that says so.

So, which part do you think God was kidding about in Genesis? Is your god (small g) one that cannot handle what is claimed in Genesis?  Is he kind of limited like that?

My God, God almighty, did exactly what HE SAID HE DID in Genesis.  He created man in the form of Adam.  He created the animals on the spot. 

He didn't describe mixing a recipe into primordial soup to see what might happen, and man, much later, crawled out.