God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[outhouse]

I believe circular assumptions are constantly made in biology, palentology and geology

Your belief is not relevant. It is evidence for fanaticism and fundamentalism when one refuses academia without the knowledge to do so.



We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I understand that by definition evolutionists say there are no out-of-sequence fossils. They would claim that the fragmentary nature of the fossil record means that we don’t have a good idea of the entire period a fossil belongs in. So if we find a fossil in a stratum that is supposed to be 100 million years older than the species (using evolutionary dating for the sake of the argument), it simply means that it evolved 100 million years earlier than we thought.

Nope. There are perfectly rational reasons for why sometimes older layers get pushed up and over younger layers. These are called Overturned Folds

Geological Folds: Definition, Causes & Types - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Perhaps a better question would be whether evolution has made predictions about the fossil record that have been confirmed or otherwise by subsequent discoveries. For instance, Charles Darwin said that “no organism wholly soft can be preserved.” He was simply wrong, because we have many examples of this.

Charles Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. His overall grasp of the beginnings of evolutionary theory, however, were sound.

The squid even contained an ink sac so fresh that the ink could be used to paint a picture.

Uh, then it wasn't a fossil...

But besides soft-bodied creatures, we have fossils like an ichthyosaur giving birth, and fish in the process of eating other fish, that capture moments in time. They must have been preserved quickly.

There are all kinds of amazing fossils out there. Why is completely beyond the realm of possibility that these creatures died while giving birth, or while eating?
Also to note, the vast vast majority of fossils aren't like this, so...

I'm sure you will tell me how much smarter we are today than in Darwin's time. I'd like to let you know that I believe in evolution. However, I believe circular assumptions are constantly made in biology, palentology and geology to support untenable hypotheses such as "There has never been a universal Flood" and "no catastrophes have occurred to preserve fossils quickly, universally" (beyond little pockets like the La Brea pits).

"There was never a universal flood" is not a hypothesis. It's a declarative statement. There is no record of a global flood, at all, anywhere, ever.

I live in Georgia and I've spent a lot of time recently studying the endemic species of crayfish in the area. I've done a lot of reading about the geologic history of this place, and I can tell you when and where the ancient shoes of the Atlantic touched on the eastern wall of the mountain range behind me. I can even show you that there is absolutely no record of the Jurassic period in Georgia, at all. Does that mean that the Jurassic period never occurred? Or does the ancient Atlantic shoreline actually mean that I've misinterpreted evidence for a Biblical deluge? (Since there was a shoreline, obviously not...)

No, what those things point to are an accurate and broad ranging description of the History of the earth, preserved in strata, easily observable, bearing no witness to this claim of a global flood that you keep holding on to...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nope. There are perfectly rational reasons for why sometimes older layers get pushed up and over younger layers. These are called Overturned Folds

Geological Folds: Definition, Causes & Types - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com



Charles Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. His overall grasp of the beginnings of evolutionary theory, however, were sound.



Uh, then it wasn't a fossil...



There are all kinds of amazing fossils out there. Why is completely beyond the realm of possibility that these creatures died while giving birth, or while eating?
Also to note, the vast vast majority of fossils aren't like this, so...



"There was never a universal flood" is not a hypothesis. It's a declarative statement. There is no record of a global flood, at all, anywhere, ever.

I live in Georgia and I've spent a lot of time recently studying the endemic species of crayfish in the area. I've done a lot of reading about the geologic history of this place, and I can tell you when and where the ancient shoes of the Atlantic touched on the eastern wall of the mountain range behind me. I can even show you that there is absolutely no record of the Jurassic period in Georgia, at all. Does that mean that the Jurassic period never occurred? Or does the ancient Atlantic shoreline actually mean that I've misinterpreted evidence for a Biblical deluge? (Since there was a shoreline, obviously not...)

No, what those things point to are an accurate and broad ranging description of the History of the earth, preserved in strata, easily observable, bearing no witness to this claim of a global flood that you keep holding on to...

I already said someone will read my post and say, "Darwin was wrong about much..." Kindly actually read my posts before replying?

I do agree with you, it isn't at all beyond the realm of possibility that an animal died while giving birth or eating. The question is whether it takes unusual circumstances for fossilization to occur, and how many unusual circumstances are required to create tens of billions of fossils...

Have you seen an overturned fold form in real time? Of course not. "Overturned fold" is a definition of a reality. Overturned folds and other geologic unconformities are often used to assume epochs and time periods...

 

[outhouse]

Darwin was wrong about much..."

You are wrong about much according to academia.

Your belief is not relevant. It is evidence for fanaticism and fundamentalism when one refuses academia without the knowledge to do so.



We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[Bunyip]

I understand that by definition evolutionists say there are no out-of-sequence fossils. They would claim that the fragmentary nature of the fossil record means that we don’t have a good idea of the entire period a fossil belongs in. So if we find a fossil in a stratum that is supposed to be 100 million years older than the species (using evolutionary dating for the sake of the argument), it simply means that it evolved 100 million years earlier than we thought.

Yes, and no such fossil has ever been found. Which is why I asked you for an example - both of us know you have none.

Perhaps a better question would be whether evolution has made predictions about the fossil record that have been confirmed or otherwise by subsequent discoveries.

Yes, many thousands of fossils have been found that way. A recent early tetrapod discovery was made by scientists figuring out exactly what strata the predicted species would occupy and they did indeed find it.

for instance, Charles Darwin said that “no organism wholly soft can be preserved.” He was simply wrong, because we have many examples of this. For instance, hundreds of fossilized jellyfish and a fossilized squid, that look remarkably similar to the same creatures living today.

Darwin was correct, the soft bodied animals are not preserved - only the imprints they left in fossilised mud and clay.

Yet they were claimed to be 505 million years old (myo) and 150 myo respectively. The squid even contained an ink sac so fresh that the ink could be used to paint a picture.

Sorry, a fossilised ink sac that was still fresh? You expect me to swallow that claim? Citation please (from a proper science resource).

The ages assigned to these fossils comes from their position in the alleged geologic column and the dates assigned to the rock layers in which they were found. Remember that it is believed that the rock layers were supposed to have been slowly deposited over millions of years, and similarly, the process of burial and mineralization is supposed to have taken a very long time. But besides soft-bodied creatures, we have fossils like an ichthyosaur giving birth, and fish in the process of eating other fish, that capture moments in time. They must have been preserved quickly.

Yes, they may have been buried in an instant in a mud flow - that is how fossils are made.

I'm sure you will tell me how much smarter we are today than in Darwin's time. I'd like to let you know that I believe in evolution. However, I believe circular assumptions are constantly made in biology, paleontology and geology to support untenable hypotheses such as "There has never been a universal Flood" and "no catastrophes have occurred to preserve fossils quickly, universally" (beyond little pockets like the La Brea pits).

But there has never been a universal flood, that would be impossible, and if Noah was a true story, there would be millions and millions of fresh dinosaur bones all over the planet, and yet we find none.

Thanks for your consideration and I apologize for being vague before.

Please, if you are going to make an incredible claim - like the squid ink, back it up with a legitimate scientific source.

 

[Bunyip]

I already said someone will read my post and say, "Darwin was wrong about much..." Kindly actually read my posts before replying?

I do agree with you, it isn't at all beyond the realm of possibility that an animal died while giving birth or eating. The question is whether it takes unusual circumstances for fossilization to occur, and how many unusual circumstances are required to create tens of billions of fossils...

Have you seen an overturned fold form in real time? Of course not. "Overturned fold" is a definition of a reality. Overturned folds and other geologic unconformities are often used to assume epochs and time periods...

You have to be kidding? "Have we seen an overturned fold form in real time?" You watch the landscape form in real time whenever you look at a mountain.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, and no such fossil has ever been found. Which is why I asked you for an example - both of us know you have none. Yes, many thousands of fossils have been found that way. A recent early tetrapod discovery was made by scientists figuring out exactly what strata the predicted species would occupy and they did indeed find it. Darwin was correct, the soft bodied animals are not preserved - only the imprints they left in fossilised mud and clay. Sorry, a fossilised ink sac that was still fresh? You expect me to swallow that claim? Citation please (from a proper science resource). Yes, they may have been buried in an instant in a mud flow - that is how fossils are made. But there has never been a universal flood, that would be impossible, and if Noah was a true story, there would be millions and millions of fresh dinosaur bones all over the planet, and yet we find none.Please, if you are going to make an incredible claim - like the squid ink, back it up with a legitimate scientific source.

The 150million-year-old squid fossil so perfectly preserved that scientists can make ink from its ink sac | Daily Mail Online

There are tens of billions of fossils. That's a lot of mud--although I personally believe there was intense volcanism around the time of the Flood.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You have to be kidding? "Have we seen an overturned fold form in real time?" You watch the landscape form in real time whenever you look at a mountain.

Start to finish. We are arguing today, even on this thread, as to how that mountain may have been incepted.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are wrong about much according to academia.

Your belief is not relevant. It is evidence for fanaticism and fundamentalism when one refuses academia without the knowledge to do so.



We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

I commend you for addressing me with facts, as I've requested.

Thank you.

 

[outhouse]

I commend you for addressing me with facts, as I've requested.

.

No you did not do anything I asked.

I said credible




We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[`mud]

Don't they have a course about this ?
Talk about mirrors......and a little smoldering !
~
'mud

 

[outhouse]

If you were to do It correctly you would post this page.

Belemnotheutis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But it doesn't help you at all. This species is well documented and no credible scientist dates these any earlier then anyone else.


Your still out of luck

 

[Bunyip]

Start to finish. We are arguing today, even on this thread, as to how that mountain may have been incepted.

No, you are mistaken. I am not arguing against the science of geology. How that mountain got there is well understood.

 

[Bunyip]

The 150million-year-old squid fossil so perfectly preserved that scientists can make ink from its ink sac | Daily Mail Online

There are tens of billions of fossils. That's a lot of mud--although I personally believe there was intense volcanism around the time of the Flood.

Did you read that article? Apparently not. The clue is in the title - it says 150 MILLION YEAR OLD FOSSIL you somehow imagine you have just supported your argument for a young earth. How did you imagine referring to a 150 MILLION YEAR OLD fossil is evidence for a young earth?

The flood is simply impossible by the way, it is a fairy story.

 

[Bunyip]

Billiards Ball

Why did you claim that the ink found in the fossil you referred to was fresh? According to the article you supplied it was not at all fresh, it was not even liquid. So why did you misrepresent it?

In your post #580 you claimed that the ink was so fresh it could be used.

So I ask for a citation.

You then supply a citation that explains that the ink was not fresh and could not be used. It was (according to your article) totally dry ink that had to be ground up and mixed with ammonia.

So why the deception?

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is no deception. It's not required to be deceitful respond to callous, unkind statements like:

The flood is simply impossible by the way, it is a fairy story.

There is enough water in the oceans to cover the earth to a depth greater than a mile, if the earth's surface was smooth, as a billiard ball. I've cited how both religious and non-religious scholars are looking into things like catastrophic plate techtonics to explain difficult problems posed by current geology knowledge.

Speaking of religiosity, I'm fairly new to religiousforums.com - what is the purpose of coming to such a forum as a skeptic?

 

[outhouse]

I've cited how both religious and non-religious scholars are looking into things like catastrophic plate techtonics to explain difficult problems posed by current geology knowledge.

You have NOT supplied a credible source. No credible scientist are looking into this.

 

[leibowde84]

I believe that the biblical story of creation doesn't describe God's original creation of Earth, but it actually describes the recreation of the Earth 6,000 years ago by God for the benefit of newly formed life who would have souls such as Adam, Eve and their descendants. I believe that according to the first few verses of Holy scripture in the book of Genesis, the Earth already had existed with water during the first day of its recreation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" - (Genesis 1:1-2)

I believe there was an older version of Earth that God had destroyed with a cloud of darkness and water, so that He could recreate the Earth with the right conditions for us humans who have souls. I think the first chapter of Genesis is widely misinterpreted as a narrative about the creation of Earth; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a narrative about the recreation of the Earth with more favorable conditions for human souls to exist. Does anybody else agree that the first few verses in the book of Genesis have been widely misinterpreted as a creation narrative; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a recreation narrative?

There is no way that any of this happened only 6000 years ago. We have difinitive proof that life began billions of years before that.

 

[leibowde84]

There is no deception. It's not required to be deceitful respond to callous, unkind statements like:



There is enough water in the oceans to cover the earth to a depth greater than a mile, if the earth's surface was smooth, as a billiard ball. I've cited how both religious and non-religious scholars are looking into things like catastrophic plate techtonics to explain difficult problems posed by current geology knowledge.

Speaking of religiosity, I'm fairly new to religiousforums.com - what is the purpose of coming to such a forum as a skeptic?

The flood story seems to be a myth used to teach a lesson, much like a fairy tale. How was his comment callous and/or unkind. I think he has a point.

 

[Salvador]

There is no way that any of this happened only 6000 years ago. We have difinitive proof that life began billions of years before that.

There is plenty of genetic evidence that there have always been at least 10,000 people alive at any point throughout human history. Proof That Quranic/Biblical Adam Did Not Exist | ReligiousForums.com