Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Any branch that misinterprets the fossil record. If it goes contrary to the Bible then the fossil record interpretation has to be wrong. Men make fallible judgments concerning all manner of things. So far, the creation account has not be disproven since it was first penned.
Pick one. Which branch of science misinterprets the fossil record and why?
Or will your answer always be, "If it goes contrary to the Bible then the fossil record interpretation has to be wrong."
I already explained to you what I believe.
Strata layering and billions of years or millions of years for each layer is not held by all scientists. I have already posted concerning that in other threads here.
Thanks for the good laugh. I have already explained myself.
You have yet to prove all life on earth evolved from a single-celled organism. Failure to do so on your part will be seen as a tacit admission of defeat.
You are fooling nobody. Your 'explanation' has been shown to be at variance both with genesis 1 and with the fossil record - even as interpreted by Creationists. Attempts to laugh it off, claim that you have answered in other threads (I have never seen this 'Life in earth Gen 1' before - I would have remembered (1) and trying to turn the discussion into another one will, as I say, fool nobody, but will make it clear that you are unable to make any better argument.
(1) and the length of time it took for the strata to be laid down is not the issue, it is the order of the strata, the continuation of many "Kinds" through all the strata (refuting the idea of a re-created earth with re -created life) and the failure of the theory to fit Genesis 1 that is the issue.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-19-2016 at 10:10 PM..
Back to the Euse we know... dancing around the issue and won't answer the question when it is direct. How Christian.
Yep. Eusebius fell flat on his face in claiming that there was Life in Genesis 1 -earth as Genesis makes it clear there was no life until 1.11. (and then has vegetation before sea -critters, when the fossil record shows it was the other way around). He then tried to separate the supposed life of gen 1. -earth from that of 1.2 with a supposed re -creation which was the Miocene extinction. That fails because of course it was far from total. It just eliminated the dominant reptiles and allowed a 'Dinosaur explosion'.
So far as the evidence goes (apart from being at variance with what genesis 1 says) it is all one earth with a continuing palaeontological story of developing types and critters and there is no evidence of a re -creation. Eusebius has crashed and burned yet again, and as usual is walking away from the smoking wreck and denying everything.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-19-2016 at 10:12 PM..
Any branch that misinterprets the fossil record. If it goes contrary to the Bible then the fossil record interpretation has to be wrong. Men make fallible judgments concerning all manner of things. So far, the creation account has not be disproven since it was first penned.
Too true. Like the fallible judgements concerning the writing and then interpretation of the bible.
Actually, the creation 'account' - myth actually, has been so solidly disproven that certain folks are forced to resort to distortion, falsifications, denials, indrination and outright lies to keep the myth afloat. Funny thing is, the only 'proof you have ever been able to provide in support of your creation claim is this; "You can't prove it". Well, guess what, "You can't prove it" proves squat, zilch, nicks, nada, nothing. Which is rather appropriate because that's precisely how much proof there is for creation.
Yep. Eusebius fell flat on his face in claiming that there was Life in Genesis 1 -earth as Genesis makes it clear there was no life until 1.11. (and then has vegetation before sea -critters, when the fossil record shows it was the other way around). He then tried to separate the supposed life of gen 1. -earth from that of 1.2 with a supposed re -creation which was the Miocene extinction. That fails because of course it was far from total. It just eliminated the dominant reptiles and allowed a 'Dinosaur explosion'.
So far as the evidence goes (apart from being at variance with what genesis 1 says) it is all one earth with a continuing palaeontological story of developing types and critters and there is no evidence of a re -creation. Eusebius has crashed and burned yet again, and as usual is walking away from the smoking wreck and denying everything.
Dear Transponder, thanks for the good laugh.
I didn't just claim there was life on earth from Genesis 1:1 to 1:2, I proved it. If there was no life prior to Genesis 1:2, then do you believe that for millions and millions of years there was no life on earth until about 6,000 years ago? That is ludicrous.
If the historic account in Genesis says "the earth became chaos and vacant, that proves there was life on earth prior to Genesis 1:2. If I say there is an apartment building with 100 people who used to live in it and it became vacant and is up for sale, would you think no one ever lived in that building? I sure wouldn't.
Genesis 1:2 onward is God making the earth habitable again.
Remember, Isaiah said God didn't create the earth a chaos but created it to be indwelt. That is Genesis 1:1. Then it BECAME chaos and vacant. If evolution disagrees with this, then it is evolution that is incorrect, not the Bible.
Dear Transponder, thanks for the good laugh.
I didn't just claim there was life on earth from Genesis 1:1 to 1:2, I proved it. If there was no life prior to Genesis 1:2, then do you believe that for millions and millions of years there was no life on earth until about 6,000 years ago? That is ludicrous.
If the historic account in Genesis says "the earth became chaos and vacant, that proves there was life on earth prior to Genesis 1:2. If I say there is an apartment building with 100 people who used to live in it and it became vacant and is up for sale, would you think no one ever lived in that building? I sure wouldn't.
Genesis 1:2 onward is God making the earth habitable again.
Remember, Isaiah said God didn't create the earth a chaos but created it to be indwelt. That is Genesis 1:1. Then it BECAME chaos and vacant. If evolution disagrees with this, then it is evolution that is incorrect, not the Bible.
It is you who is making people laugh with the garbage you come out with!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
