Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

  • Thread starter Thread starter NSmith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
48.png
rossum:
You mean the fossils of Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Mrs. Seth etc? Yes, they are indeed missing.
Click to expand...
Surely you must be aware of how fossils are formed and their rarity.
Click to expand...
Then why are you guys always complaining about a dearth of fossils? ‘Where’s the evidence?’ is the constant mantra (even after bucket loads have been presented). I’m sure at some time someone has tried to explain to you ‘how fossils are formed and their rarity.’

I’m glad it’s finally sunk in. Is that a ‘Buffalo’? Mmm. Not really. It’s not on par with arguing about the ages of stars and then linking to an article suggesting that light was slower 14 billion years ago…

Which kinda contradicts your ‘tens of thousands of years’ as well. What say you?
 
The saltiness of the sea is another argument for how young the earth really is.

Per conventional science, the oceans should be at least 3 billion years old. Yet, if the oceans were really that old, they should be much saltier than they are. And, analysis of other dissolved minerals (other than sodium chloride) in the sea gives similar young ages.

Similarly, continental erosion rates are estimated to cause a reduction of 2.4 inches (61 millimeters) per thousand years. That may not seem like much but when applied to conventional continental ages of hundreds of millions of years, it adds up to quite a bit. The average continental height is 623 meters. The continents should have been fully eroded long ago. Also, ocean floors would be more more choked with sediments if the continents were as old as the estimates of conventional “science”.

Carbon 14 dates show how young the earth is. Salinity rates and other dissolved mineral rates in the earth’s ocean show how young the earth is. Erosion and sedimentation rates are also indicative of a young earth.

Statistical Source: Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & The Flood by Andrew A, Snelling, Master Books, 2009.
 
stoplooklisten said:
The saltiness of the sea is another argument for how young the earth really is.
Click to expand...
Oh dear. Yet another YEC PRATT. Yes, there are processes which add salt to the sea. However, there are also processes which remove salt from the sea. Your source is lying by omission for not telling you this.

Those lying sources may fool you, but they don’t fool us. We have seen these arguments before. Because YEC does not do any science, all it has to rely on are old recycled arguments that we have seen before. This particular one is dealt with at Claim CD221.1.
 
Freddy said:
Can I ask you why you post here, stop?
Click to expand...
I could think about it more but I already know that I seek to serve and put to use whatever “talents” I may have. I do seek to add value. I do reverence God. I do expect that I have a Judge when my life is over. Can I ask, why do you ask? Can I ask, why do you post here?
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
I don’t want to be rude, but that’s a clumsy sentence and difficult to parse.
Click to expand...
Then let me help you out:

(S Does
(NP astronomy)
(VP have
(NP no future)
(PP as
(PP to
(S (VP making
(NP (NP better observations)
or
(NP more cogent reasoning))))))
(PP as to
(NP (NP the distance)
(PP of
(NP the stars))))))

Not clumsy at all and quite easy to parse. Though it does seem difficult for you to simply answer, “Yes” or “No”.
Freddy said:
And yes, our abilities in this area will improve.
Click to expand...
Well, there we finally have it. Of course, as all know, that is true so the present estimate of the distance to the stars and, therefore even more so, the age of the universe can only be tentatively believed.
Freddy said:
Now, how accurate do you think the age of the universe is in regard to the big bang …
Click to expand...
Since an answer is entirely dependent on a matter of faith, the same question could be asked on another matter of faith: Now, how accurate do you think the age of humanity is in regard to Adam and Eve …

To your question, the answer must always be qualified by citing the unproven assumptions upon which any answer depends.

If the big bang, if the Hubble theory, if the constancy of the speed of light, and, most importantly, if these are the only variables that matter are all true then the science presently employed to estimate the distance to the stars could be valid.
 
o_mlly said:
To your question, the answer must always be qualified by citing the unproven assumptions upon which any answer depends.

If the big bang, if the Hubble theory, if the constancy of the speed of light, and, most importantly, if these are the only variables that matter are all true then the science presently employed to estimate the distance to the stars could be valid.
Click to expand...
People assume that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, despite there being no independent evidence that Moses ever existed. People assume that the text of the Bible is complete, despite the evidence that, for example, the original ending of Mark’s Gospel is missing. People assume that the existing text of the Bible matches the original, despite the presence of obvious scribal errors.

If you are going to be hyper-sceptical about science then you are also casting doubt on the Bible if the same hyper-scepticism is applied.
 
rossum said:
People assume that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, despite there being no independent evidence that Moses ever existed.
Click to expand...
Have you ever noticed that there is a Jewish/Hebrew nation in the world?

The Jewish/Hebrew nation has been present in the world continuously since Abraham (before Moses). The existence of that ethnic group is evidence that Moses is real because the Mosaic Tradition is real and continues.
 
rossum said:
This particular one is dealt with at Claim CD221.1
Click to expand...
Diatoms are comprised of calcium not sodium. I’d like to know more about how alteration of basalt removes sodium. How do you know that the facts and analysis in talk.origins is reliable?

It’s a good question. Has the amount of sodium chloride stayed constant in the ocean across earth’s history? If it has not, then it is evidence that the oceans are getting saltier and that has implications for the age of the earth. If the amount of sodium chloride in the oceans has stayed constant, then that shows remarkable ecological balance (in the Creator’s design and Providence) across both organic and inorganic processes.
 
stoplooklisten said:
The existence of that ethnic group is evidence that Moses is real because the Mosaic Tradition is real and continues.
Click to expand...
The existence of the Japanese ethnic group is evidence of the existence of Izanagi and Izanami.

The existence of the Navaho is evidence of the truth of the Navaho origin story with the black, blue, yellow and white worlds.

Do the poems of Homer show that the Greek gods really exist?

I repeat, there is no contemporary evidence of the existence of Moses. All the evidence is later hearsay.
 
stoplooklisten said:
Diatoms are comprised of calcium not sodium.
Click to expand...
Diatoms are living organisms, they include both calcium and sodium as well as other elements. You need to do more research on this.

YEC has zero scientific support, hence the difficulty for YEC websites trying to appear scientific.
 
rossum said:
People assume that the Pentateuch was written by Moses …
Click to expand...
It does not matter who wrote it but that whoever wrote it was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
rossum said:
People assume that the text of the Bible is complete, despite the evidence that, for example, the original ending of Mark’s Gospel is missing.
Click to expand...
No, the original ending is not missing but amended. See:

rossum said:
If you are going to be hyper-sceptical about science then you are also casting doubt on the Bible if the same hyper-scepticism is applied.
Click to expand...
“Hyper”? Hardly “hyper”. A healthy skepticism in science is rewarded with advances in human understanding of the physical world.
 
o_mlly said:
No, the original ending is not missing but amended.
Click to expand...
The original ending is still missing and has been replaced by one of the possible “amended” wordings available in different old manuscripts. That is what “amended” means: it has been changed from the original. What we have today is not the original. As your own reference says in the notes:
Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it [The Longer Ending] was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark.
Click to expand...
We no longer have the original words of Mark, but the words of someone else. Hence, the Bible is not what many people claim it to be. Our hyper-scepticism allows us to reject it.
 
stoplooklisten said:
48.png
Freddy:
Can I ask you why you post here, stop?
Click to expand...
I could think about it more but I already know that I seek to serve and put to use whatever “talents” I may have. I do seek to add value. I do reverence God. I do expect that I have a Judge when my life is over. Can I ask, why do you ask? Can I ask, why do you post here?
Click to expand...
I meant specifically in this thread. And I do because it’s kinda entertaining. And some of us like to correct some misinterpetations of the science that are posted (the matter of the saltiness of the sea for example, which rossum just helped out with).
 
o_mlly said:
If the big bang, if the Hubble theory, if the constancy of the speed of light, and, most importantly, if these are the only variables that matter are all true then the science presently employed to estimate the distance to the stars could be valid.
Click to expand...
Yeehaa! You just made my day.
 
rossum said:
What we have today is not the original. As your own reference says in the notes:
Click to expand...
Ahem.

From my citation:
This abrupt termination causes some to believe that the original ending of this gospel may have been lost.
Click to expand...
Amen.

“Some to believe … may have been lost” does not mean “the original is … missing”. Please do not elevate the subjunctive mood to the declarative. It’s an old habit that I thought we’d fixed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top