Paleontologist Explains What The Fossils Really Say

[alang1216]

False.

Maybe I should clarify. The fossil record does not support a literal interpretation of Biblical creation in Genesis. To say there was a single episode of creation when ALL species came into being is exactly NOT what the evidence shows. If you want to argue that creation of new species is a continuous phenomenon that is very different.

 

[Ringtone]

Maybe I should clarify. The fossil record does not support a literal interpretation of Biblical creation in Genesis. To say there was a single episode of creation when ALL species came into being is exactly NOT what the evidence shows. If you want to argue that creation of new species is a continuous phenomenon that is very different.

The Bible doesn't tell us that all lifeforms were created at the same time. You're confused.

 

[alang1216]

The Bible doesn't tell us that all lifeforms were created at the same time. You're confused.

In a 14 billion year old universe, 7 days is 'at the same time'. If I'm confused it is because you have failed explain yourself.

 

[james bond]

Your sweaty, feverish rants are concerning.

I have this uncomfortable feeling that we will eventually read about you in the newspapers. Something connected with Kool-aid.

Lol, boy do you have me wrong. I only discuss this stuff here and treat it like watching tv, i.e. waste of time entertainment with a small slice of education once in a while. Your continued emotional ranting against me could make you the one who goes bonkers and drink the Kool-aid.

 

[james bond]

The Bible doesn't tell us that all lifeforms were created at the same time. You're confused.

Please explain what you mean or give examples. I think we both know the days of creation.

 

[james bond]

Maybe I should clarify. The fossil record does not support a literal interpretation of Biblical creation in Genesis. To say there was a single episode of creation when ALL species came into being is exactly NOT what the evidence shows. If you want to argue that creation of new species is a continuous phenomenon that is very different.

The fossil record was messed up by the global flood. In for a penny, in for a pound.

>>In a 14 billion year old universe, 7 days is 'at the same time'.<<

There is no 14 B nor 4.5 B years old anything. There is no deep time. You have nothing observable nor testable for it. It's six days + day of rest for creationists as God is our witness. That's key for a young Earth and universe.

 

[Ringtone]

In a 14 billion year old universe, 7 days is 'at the same time'. If I'm confused it is because you have failed explain yourself.

You're reading things into the Biblical account that aren't there. For example, seven days?

 

[Hollie]

False.

True.

“Creationism” is a label for Christians frantically pretending that supernaturalism and magic is a part of science.

 

[Hollie]

The fossil record was messed up by the global flood. In for a penny, in for a pound.

>>In a 14 billion year old universe, 7 days is 'at the same time'.<<

There is no 14 B nor 4.5 B years old anything. There is no deep time. You have nothing observable nor testable for it. It's six days + day of rest for creationists as God is our witness. That's key for a young Earth and universe.

There was no global flood. You’re a day late and a dollar short.

The earth is neither flat nor 6,000 years old.

 

[Hollie]

Lol, boy do you have me wrong. I only discuss this stuff here and treat it like watching tv, i.e. waste of time entertainment with a small slice of education once in a while. Your continued emotional ranting against me could make you the one who goes bonkers and drink the Kool-aid.

Obviously, you’re easily amused.

 

[alang1216]

The fossil record was messed up by the global flood. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Easy claim to make, especially if you don't feel the need to provide any evidence for it.

There is no 14 B nor 4.5 B years old anything. There is no deep time. You have nothing observable nor testable for it. It's six days + day of rest for creationists as God is our witness. That's key for a young Earth and universe.

If the universe and the earth are young, why did God make it seem like it is very, very old?

• Light from distant objects takes a very long time to get here. Even light from the other side of our galaxy takes 100,000 years to arrive and we can measure those distances directly
• Radioisotope decay (much work has been done since 1956)
• Miles of sediments that could not have been laid down in a single flood event
• Continental drift, magnetic reversals, mountain building, exotic terrain, etc.

 

[alang1216]

You're reading things into the Biblical account that aren't there. For example, seven days?

I don't know what Bible you're reading but that is what mine says.

 

[Wuwei]

Lol, boy do you have me wrong. I only discuss this stuff here and treat it like watching tv, i.e. waste of time entertainment with a small slice of education once in a while. Your continued emotional ranting against me could make you the one who goes bonkers and drink the Kool-aid.

That's as much as admitting you are a troll.
.

 

[Ringtone]

I don't know what Bible you're reading but that is what mine says.

According to the biblical account, what did God create on the 7th day of creation?

crickets chirping

How much time passed between the creation of the heavens and earth and the moment God said, "Let there be light"?

crickets chirping

 

[Hollie]

According to the biblical account, what did God create on the 7th day of creation?

crickets chirping

How much time passed between the creation of the heavens and earth and the moment God said, "Let there be light"?

crickets chirping

Identify why anyone should accept your claim that one or more gods created anything with nothing more than “… because I read it in the Bible”.




crickets chirping

 

[james bond]

Obviously, you’re easily amused.

I'd offer you a real drink, but since you prefer...

I can see you in a Kool-aid woman costume for Halloween '22.

 

[james bond]

Identify why anyone should accept your claim that one or more gods created anything with nothing more than “… because I read it in the Bible”.




crickets chirping

Jeez, the Bible is always right and true because God wrote it. That's why science backs it up.

 

[Viktor]

Ahhh, a video from a group that supports Creationism. How neutral such a thing is.

Sorry, not buying whatever it is he is selling.

They do not support Creationism. He has a PhD in Paleontology. What are your qualifications?

 

[james bond]

Easy claim to make, especially if you don't feel the need to provide any evidence for it.


If the universe and the earth are young, why did God make it seem like it is very, very old?

• Light from distant objects takes a very long time to get here. Even light from the other side of our galaxy takes 100,000 years to arrive and we can measure those distances directly
• Radioisotope decay (much work has been done since 1956)
• Miles of sediments that could not have been laid down in a single flood event
• Continental drift, magnetic reversals, mountain building, exotic terrain, etc.

You're another who misses what I explained already. Where did our seas and oceans that covers 3/4 of the planet come from? We already discussed how the limestone got on top of Mt. Everest as well as the seafloor chalk fossils onto The Cliffs of Dover and other cliffs and mountains around the world. Same with The Grand Canyon. Then there is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge that circles the world. In a word -- geomorphology -- Geomorphology provides evidence for global flood - creation.com. It is evidence that our geology of Earth is based on catastrophism and not uniformitarianism (or present is the key to the past ).

Startling evidence for Noahs Flood

Where did the Grand Canyon sand come from?

creation.com

As for your other problems, quid pro quo. Answer this problem with light from distant objects...

"In the big-bang model, there is the “Horizon Problem,” a variant of the light-travel-time problem which you mentioned. This is based on the exchange of starlight/electromagnetic radiation to make the universe a constant temperature.

In the supposed big bang, the light could not have been exchanged and the universe was expected to have many variations of temperature, but this was not the case when measured. Such problems cause many to struggle with the bigbang model, and rightly so.

1. Early in the alleged big bang, points A and B start out with different temperatures.
2. Today, points A and B have the same temperature, yet there has not been enough time for them to exchange light."

Once you figure out your atheist science's problem, then it can be applied to the light from distant objects. Hurry. Hurry. Step right up. Get your hypotheses here!

As for you other questions, radioisotope decay was wrong as Patterson did not have a clean room and there could have been contamination. Also, his assumptions were not correct. No one knows how much radioisotope was there at the beginning. So, his billions and millions of years is not correct. Atheists want it badly because otherwise evolution is dead.

I provided the links to the global flood above.

As for your last problems, why don't you explain them using evolution? At least my answers are observable and some are testable. Winners win everything. Losers lose everything.

 

[Mushroom]

They do not support Creationism. He has a PhD in Paleontology. What are your qualifications?

I know he was fired as curator of the State Museum of Stuttgart because he suddenly started to give talks dismissing evolution and promoting "Intelligent Design".

Look, call it whatever you want. Creationism, Intelligent Design, I really do not care. But it is all the same thing, and you can't realistically tell me otherwise. But are you really saying that only people with doctorates can discuss things?

Wow, talk about arrogance. But either way, if the topic is Creationism or Intelligent Design, that is a religious topic and not one of science. Therefore, it really does not belong here.