Biblical Creation vs Evolution- The Fossil Record

Sadly your fallacious logic and mental contortions do not a compelling argument make. It does serve however as a classic example of religious confirmation bias hardened to imperviousness.

As for truth, it seems literalists aren't familiar with how the bible was "created" in the first place.

Is Jehovah's word, better than Yawehs word, better than Allah's word, better than Brahmas? Which is more "divine" and why? Oh right only "your" god's word is the right one and everyone before and after are the work of the devil.

 

Hahahahaahahaah!

thanks for demonstrating your maturity, intellectual ability and wit.

 

by the amount of quotes it appears he's done this before and has it all readily available to spam the thread believing the sheer volume of nonsense adds credence to his position...

 

oh for sure

 

The Bible isn't a science book, and believers have no need to debate in the realm of science since one believes in the Bible account on faith that its accurate and a wonder of the Creator and I for one don't need to consider the evidence to the contrary I though would note in the Bible fallen angels mated with mortal women infusing the human genome with demonic DNA for likely many generations and sin entered into the universe who knows how that affected the natural order including cosmic ages which use science depending on the base methods able to test past sin and the taint of the Nephilim an their demonic offspring tainting the DNA of humans. Well tossing that out there I don't need to prove anything this is not an argument God did it is enough for me. This is more conjecture.

 

In ancient stories of Muslims and Jews. Adam and Ever were separated for 130 years after the FALL.. While separated Adam cohabited with Lilith and she gave birth to demons.. Finally God forgave them and they were reunited.

 

Thanks for asking. 10,000 years 6 day creation. So yes before the flood all former life lived together at the same time.

 

Sadly your fallacious logic and mental contortions do not a compelling argument make. It does serve however as a classic example of naturalistic religious confirmation bias hardened to imperviousness.

As for truth, it seems evolutionist arnt familiar with how the bible was "created" in the first place.

Is Jehovah's word, better than Yawehs word, better than Allah's word, better than Brahmas? Better than Darwin's Which is more "divine" and why? Oh right only "your" god's word is the right one and everyone before and after are the work of the devil



But kidding aside if your interested in comparative religion i love the subject hang around threads coming. My current false religion i am dealing with is naturism and materialism. Just cant make sense of the fossil record and as we will see in later threads, science.

 

Good thing to because science books are full of lies and distortions while gods word is true. That will be my next thread.The bible is gods word and accurate history. You have accepted the liberals definition of faith, witch means just believe despite what your mind tells you. This is not a biblical faith.

"Do not think that we say that these things are only to be received by faith, but also that they are to be asserted by reason. For indeed it is not safe to commit these things to bare faith without reason, since assuredly truth cannot be without reason. And therefore he who has received these things fortified by reason, can never lose them; whereas he who receives them without proofs, by an assent to a simple statement of them, can neither keep them safely, nor is certain if they are true; because he who easily believes, also easily yields. But he who has sought reason for those things which he has believed and received, as though bound by chains of reason itself, can never be torn away or separated from those things which he hath believed. And therefore, according as any one is more anxious in demanding a reason, by so much will he be the firmer in preserving his faith."
― Clement of Alexandria

 

The flood is a myth borrowed from Sumer..and there is evidence for that,.. in 2900 BC.

 

Do you have evidence for this outside the bible.... because what ever reasons you have to be skeptical about evolution etc, .... if we leave out biblical athority there is virtually no evidence for your ideas and a huge amount of reason to be skeptical of your interpretation of what ever paltry evidence outside the bible that you might present

All respect but to me it seems like you have confirmatory bias based on religious faith in your holy book. And, actually, your intepretation of the bible is far from universal. So simply saying that“the bible says so” is not particularly useful in this discussion

Btw, i am Not trying to be difficult nor disrespectful of your religious beliefs

 

There is evidence that the Hebrews borrowed their stories from Babylon and the North Coast Canaanites.

 

And what scientific evidence do you have to support your age of the earth?

 

It seems that these ideas are a better place to start than a discussion of evolution

 

Preaching to to choir

 

The stories were never intended to be history or science.. They are inspirational..I didn't mean to insinuate I was preaching to you.. LOL

This fundamentalist stuff drives people away from faith.. They are forced to park their brains outside the church.

 

Never heard that one before. Please get some skepticism to liberal claims. This will be a great thing to bring up on a future thread of mine.

 

There is no scientific evidence for the age of the earth either way as it is outside of the realm of observation and demonstration. But their are "indicators" [strong ones] that the earth is young and major issues with methods such as radiometric dating. In short "if we leave out natrulistic materialism as an ultimate authority there is virtually no evidence for their ideas and a huge amount of reason to be skeptical of your interpretation of what ever paltry evidence outside the their faith that you might present"


see here.

Biblical Creation and the age of the Earth
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ion-vs-evolution-the-age-of-the-earth.538070/



No problems. Sorry if i come off as that. I look at it more like science disproves evolution, and the only real alternative creation, fits science much better. This one thread is on the fossil record, I believe it clearly supports creation. In time and i hope you stay around, i will do the same for many other subjects and show evolution refuted by science in many ways. I will also show those who believe do not do so because of evidence, but because of worldview/religious reasons. Stay tuned my freind.

 

Biblical Creation and the age of the Earth
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ion-vs-evolution-the-age-of-the-earth.538070/

 

This science stuff drives people away from faith in Darwinism. Otherwise they are forced to park their brains outside of observation.

 

Well fossils take much longer than 10,000 years. So the abundance of fossils at various different levels would indicate an earth older than 10,years
We also have an extensive ice core record

Are YOU among those claiming a 10,ooo year old earth?

What are the scuentific young earth indicators that you refer to

I briefly looked and saw no evidence of a 10000 old earth. If you think i am wrong about there being paltry evidence for a10000 yo earth please present that evidence

i agree that evolution is ridiculous if the earth is 10000 years old

Ok
But i do agree that a 10000 year old earth would not allow for evolution. But lets leave evolution Aside and talk about the evidence for the age of the universe, the age of the earth, and the age of life on thevearth

 

So the gist of all this is that the 1stvermont doesn't believe in evolution because the fossil record doesn't yet contain examples of all the creatures during their evolutionary process?

I wonder if 1stvermont believes all today's creatures were around in the beginning of the Earth, and if so why don't we find fossils of cows and Canadian geese along side T-Rex fossils?

After reading their responses in this thread I know better than to expect an answer...

 

I think you claims should be brought over to the thread on the age of the earth dont you? you would be surprised how no fault of our own, evolutionist have been able to deceive us to believe in an old earth without giving us all the information on fossil formation or ice cores, or many other issues. Please go and post theere i will also present evidence the earth is young, we can go over the implications of what you say you did not see for a young earth.

 

It was a flood of the Euphrates River Basin caused by spring snowmelt from the mountains and heavy rain. Lasted a week. The Ark was several barges that hauled beer, grain and livestock down river.

The flood was not uncommon. That's what built up the delta south of Basra.