What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

Originally posted by Autodidact

The fact is, the Bible and science disagree. I have chosen one; you the other

The Bible and science does not disagree.
That happens only when persons attempt to use science to disprove or discredit the Bible.

"Up to that point, I thought that faith in God was based more on emotion than on reason. How wrong I was! I thanked the Witnesses for the informative discussion and said that I would like to continue participating in the weekly study. So from then on, I continued my studies at the university and, together with my wife, my Bible studies with the Witnesses. Also, my wife and I began to attend the meetings of the Witnesses held at the Kingdom Hall.​

Within a few months, I learned many new Bible truths and soon qualified to join the Witnesses in the door-to-door ministry. This I did even though I was in the final stages of earning my doctorate at the university, which absorbed a great deal of my time. I finished my dissertation in the summer of 1978 and moved to the state of Alabama, where I began teaching physics at the Alabama A. & M. University in Huntsville. We quickly contacted the Witnesses in our new locality, and an elder and his wife continued to study the Bible with us. A few months later, my wife and I were baptized, both on the same day.​

Active as a Scientist and a Minister

For me, being a scientist has proved to be compatible with being a Witness of Jehovah. In 1983, I began working as an astrophysicist at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), also in Huntsville. ​

I worked in both the experimental and the theoretical fields associated with an X-ray telescope. (In 1999 that telescope—the Chandra X-ray Observatory—was successfully launched into orbit by the space shuttle Columbia.) I enjoyed working on that project, which involved the analyzing of X-rays emitted from various stars and galaxies in an attempt to understand the physical universe better.
My work was doubly enjoyable to me because not only was I working on a scientifically challenging problem but I was also coming to a deeper appreciation of the power and wisdom of the Creator. In fact, Jehovah’s words through the ancient prophet Isaiah took on special meaning for me. The Creator says: "Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing." (Isaiah 40:26) The more I ‘raised my eyes high up’ to peer at the vastness, the complexity, and the beauty of the universe, the more I appreciated the work of the intelligent Designer who brought all of it about and established the laws that keep it all together.​

During that time, I kept busy publishing new material in scientific journals based on my research in X-ray astrophysics. However, I was also active in the Christian congregation. I served as an elder and spent some 20 hours each month in the public preaching work. Meanwhile, my wife engaged in the Bible education work on a full-time basis.​

After working some four years at NASA, I felt a growing need to volunteer more of my time to help others learn the wonderful truths found in the Bible. But how could I do so? After discussing my desire with my wife and taking the matter to Jehovah in prayer, I realized that I had to make some important decisions."

(AWAKE! 04 1/22 p. 20 Published by Jehovah’s Witnesses)
​

​

​

 

[wilsoncole]

The Bible and science does not disagree.
That happens only when persons attempt to use science to disprove or discredit the Bible.

Continuing:

"Weighty Decisions
I approached my immediate supervisor at NASA and told him that I wanted to change my workweek from five days to four days. Of course, I would accept a reduced income. I explained to my supervisor that I wanted to spend the other three days of the week in connection with my ministry. My supervisor agreed, although this arrangement was unheard of for scientists at NASA. However, he told me that I needed to talk to his supervisor. I did so and was pleasantly surprised when this upper-level supervisor also agreed with my request. So in September　1987, I began my career as a full-time minister, spending some 90 hours a month in door-to-door preaching and other features of the ministry.​

Later, a supervisor from the Alabama A. & M. University in Huntsville called me. He offered me a teaching position in the physics department. I replied that I would accept the job only if it would enable me to use the bulk of my time for my ministry. I assured him, though, that my activities in the ministry would not detract from the quality of my work in teaching classes. The supervisor agreed. Today, I still teach at that university and also serve as a full-time minister. I even had time to learn Spanish. Presently, my wife and I serve in a Spanish-speaking congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Huntsville.​

Science and Faith

In my years of doing scientific research, I have never encountered a conflict between a proved scientific fact and a teaching of the Bible. Often, seeming conflicts are caused by a lack of knowledge—either of a scientific teaching or of what the Bible really says. For example, some scientists and others erroneously think that the Bible teaches that plants, animals, and humans all developed on earth within six literal 24-hour days. This would be in conflict with known scientific facts. But the Bible does not teach that. Rather, it reveals that the creative "days" encompass thousands of years.​

Confusion also arises from the mistaken idea that faith in God is merely an emotional experience. Far from that, faith in God and the Bible is based on facts that can be verified. As defined in the Bible, "faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration [or, "convincing evidence," footnote] of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1) ​

Yes, faith is based on evidence. Hundreds of prophecies have been fulfilled in the past and in our day. Thus, even applying the scientific method used by all scientists to establish a scientific theory, we can have complete confidence in the fulfillment of Bible prophecies that pertain to future events.​

One such prophecy includes the promise that we will be able to enjoy Paradise conditions on earth in the near future. The devastating effects of old age, sickness, death, wars, and injustice will be no more. (Revelation 21:3,　4) Then we will have time to explore and study in detail the wonderful creations of Jehovah God and the many laws that he established to govern this awe-inspiring physical universe.​

I am grateful to Jehovah God for helping me to find the key to true happiness—the wonderful truths found in his Word, the Bible. It is my prayer that still many others, including scientists, may find that precious key."​

(AWAKE! 04 1/22 p. 20 Published by Jehovah’s Witnesses)​

 

[tumbleweed41]

In what way are you different from me?
You dismiss all biblical beliefs that does not mesh with your scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence=natural reality.
Biblical beliefs=subjective perception.
So, do I reject the belief that Noah built a boat and took two or seven of every species on earth aboard to save them from a worldwide flood? Well if I look at the empirical evidence of geology, biology, hydrology, physics, anthropology, natural history, etc, etc...
Yes, I do.
That is called looking at the world realistically, instead of relying on fantasy.

What does the fossil record have to say about mankind's spiritual need?

Absolutely nothing.
Therefore spirituality is irrelevant to this thread.
As are your posts on why one believes in the Bible.
We are discussing the fossil record.
So,
What does the Bible have to say about the fossil record?

 

[wilsoncole]

Scientific evidence=natural reality.
Biblical beliefs=subjective perception.
So, do I reject the belief that Noah built a boat and took two or seven of every species on earth aboard to save them from a worldwide flood? Well if I look at the empirical evidence of geology, biology, hydrology, physics, anthropology, natural history, etc, etc...
Yes, I do.
That is called looking at the world realistically, instead of relying on fantasy.

So you think that this PhD nuclear scientist you just read about made all of his decisions based on fantasy? That he ignored geology, biology, hydrology, physics, anthropology, natural history?
Are you a PhD nuclear physicist?

Absolutely nothing.
Therefore spirituality is irrelevant to this thread.

You won't sidestep the issue so easily. When you raise challenges to the Bible IN THIS THREAD, I will respond to them.

As are your posts on why one believes in the Bible.
We are discussing the fossil record.

Then why on earth do you raise challenges to the Bible using this medium?

So,
What does the Bible have to say about the fossil record?

Directly, nothing! Neither does it mention the dangers of smoking nor the dropping of napalm on villages - directly. But such things are covered by the immutable Biblical principle:
"Whatever it is that you want men to do to you, you must do to them."
The Bible covers many of these things indirectly.
What does that prove to you?

Indirectly, on fossils, we get this:
"Other possible evidence of a drastic change: Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth. Some of these were found in Siberian cliffs; others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan ice.

In fact, some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly. It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of tens of thousands of such mammoths have been found. The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously.

Some have pointed to such finds as definite physical proof of a rapid change in climate and sudden destruction caused by a universal flood. Others, however, favor explanations for the death of these animals that do not involve an earth-wide catastrophe. Proof that the Flood occurred is not dependent on such fossils and frozen animal remains."

"Geological research provides clear evidence that the fossils held to be among the earliest specimens of a certain creature are very similar to their descendants alive today. Cockroaches found among the supposed earliest fossil insects are virtually identical to modern ones. Fossil "bridges" between "kinds" are totally lacking. Horses, oak trees, eagles, elephants, walnuts, ferns, and so forth, all continue within the same "kinds" without evolving into other "kinds." The testimony of the fossils is in full accord with the Bible’s history of creation, which shows that Jehovah created the living things of the earth in great numbers and "according to their kinds" during the final creative days.—Ge 1:20-25.
(INSIGHT vol. 1 p. 610 & vol. 2 p. 153 Published by Jehovah's Witnesses)

 

[outhouse]

So you think that this PhD nuclear scientist you just read about made all of his decisions based on fantasy?

yes he did, he was not a biologist and did not look at all science had to offer going against all his peers

When you raise challenges to the Bible IN THIS THREAD, I will respond to them

Do you teach how the 5 unknown hebrew authors of genesis stole the sumerian pagan story and twisted it to meet hebrew language and religious needs by compiling the early books after these same storys were told around canpfires for 300-500 years?????

because that is how the creation story came to life when it stated clearly "god made man in "OUR" image"

 

[DeistPrimate]

Wilsoncole why are you posting the contents of JW pamplets? At least use one on topic one, for example one with drawings illustrating how fossils were placed there by the devil to confuse us.

 

[DeistPrimate]

I do not believe it is possible for any unbeliever to understand the Bible.
So you are bound to draw wrong conclusions.

So you were a believer before you even began reading the book?

Gee, I wonder which is the biased mind?

 

[tumbleweed41]

So you think that this PhD nuclear scientist you just read about made all of his decisions based on fantasy? That he ignored geology, biology, hydrology, physics, anthropology, natural history?

Yes, I do. Perhaps that is why he quit to become a full time minister.
(I wonder why this PhD has never presented a paper in support of Creationism? A perusal of his submitted work includes peer reviewed articles on some ideas on the nuclear physics of the sun, but nothing about how nuclear physics supports Creationism.)

Are you a PhD nuclear physicist?

No, I am not. Are you a Biologist? Geologist? Anthropologist?

You won't sidestep the issue so easily. When you raise challenges to the Bible IN THIS THREAD, I will respond to them.

The challenges refer to the mythical creation story in relation to the fossil record. Not why one becomes a Jehovah's Witness.

Then why on earth do you raise challenges to the Bible using this medium?

Because a literal reading of Genesis is in direct conflict with the fossil record.

Directly, nothing! Neither does it mention the dangers of smoking nor the dropping of napalm on villages - directly. But such things are covered by the immutable Biblical principle:
"Whatever it is that you want men to do to you, you must do to them."
The Bible covers many of these things indirectly.
What does that prove to you?

That certain parts of the Bible were written to guide its followers in what the writers considered ethical behavior.

Indirectly, on fossils, we get this:
"Other possible evidence of a drastic change: Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth. Some of these were found in Siberian cliffs; others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan ice.

In fact, some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly. It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of tens of thousands of such mammoths have been found. The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously.

Some have pointed to such finds as definite physical proof of a rapid change in climate and sudden destruction caused by a universal flood. Others, however, favor explanations for the death of these animals that do not involve an earth-wide catastrophe. Proof that the Flood occurred is not dependent on such fossils and frozen animal remains."

"Geological research provides clear evidence that the fossils held to be among the earliest specimens of a certain creature are very similar to their descendants alive today. Cockroaches found among the supposed earliest fossil insects are virtually identical to modern ones. Fossil "bridges" between "kinds" are totally lacking. Horses, oak trees, eagles, elephants, walnuts, ferns, and so forth, all continue within the same "kinds" without evolving into other "kinds." The testimony of the fossils is in full accord with the Bible’s history of creation, which shows that Jehovah created the living things of the earth in great numbers and "according to their kinds" during the final creative days.—Ge 1:20-25.
(INSIGHT vol. 1 p. 610 & vol. 2 p. 153 Published by Jehovah's Witnesses)

Well, first of all, I asked what the Bible had to say on Fossil remains, and you quote pseudoscientific nonsense from a JW pamphlet.

Secondly, the author of the pamphlet ignores that the fossil record not only contradicts a young earth as proposed in a literal reading of the Bible, but that there is absolutely no evidence, either geological or through the fossil record, that a world wide flood ever caused mass destruction of flora and fauna. Although you gotta love this bit of reasoning..
"Proof that the Flood occurred is not dependent on such fossils and frozen animal remains."
Thus giving an easy out. If the evidence does not match Biblical literacy, go with the Bible.
Also, the authors claim that transitional fossils are lacking is completely dishonest. And shows a lack of understanding of not only biological evolution, but also the conditions that must be present for fossilization to occur.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

It would be my pleasure.
I do not believe it is possible for any unbeliever to understand the Bible.
So you are bound to draw wrong conclusions.

The musings of the truly ignorant...

 

[wilsoncole]

The musings of the truly ignorant...

Nobody know everything so everyone is ignorant of something. That includes you.
But......
Are you willing to put it to the test?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Are you willing to put it to the test?

Are you?
Or are you going to keep posting pseudoscientific JW pamphlets?

 

[Autodidact]

In what way are you different from me?
You dismiss all biblical beliefs that does not mesh with your scientific evidence.

The difference is as I have said. I base my beliefs on science; you base yours on myth.

What does the fossil record have to say about mankind's spiritual need?

I suppose you could start a thread if you want to discuss this. Science is the study of the natural, which is to say material, world. That's what it's about.

 

[Autodidact]

The Bible and science does not disagree.

That's interesting. So you agree that the world is about 4.56 billion years old, that the universe consists mostly of empty space, that the earth revolves around the sun, that the Theory of Evolution tells us how we get the variety of species on earth, and that the Jews were never slaves in Egypt?

That happens only when persons attempt to use science to disprove or discredit the Bible.

Science does not care what the Bible says. It only makes an independent attempt to learn the truth.

Is your position that science and the Bible agree? Then why do you reject science?

A Scientist Examines The Bible

The Bible contains various statements for which independent physical evidence is lacking. For example, what it says about an invisible realm inhabited by spirit creatures cannot be proved—or disproved—scientifically. Do such unprovable references necessarily put the Bible at odds with science?​

This was the question facing a planetary geologist who began to study the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses some years ago. "I must admit that accepting the Bible was difficult for me at first because I could not prove some Bible statements scientifically," he recalls.
This sincere man continued studying the Bible and eventually became convinced that the available evidence demonstrates that it is God’s Word.
"This lessened the yearning to have every Bible fact proved independently," he explains. "A person with a scientific inclination must be willing to examine the Bible from a spiritual standpoint, or he will never accept the truth.
Science cannot be expected to substantiate every statement in the Bible. But just because certain statements are unprovable, that does not mean that they are untrue.
The important thing is that wherever provable the Bible’s accuracy is verified."
(Watchtower 98 4/1 p. 19 Published by Jehovah's Witnesses)

I have not the slightest interest in your JW propaganda. They are notorious liars. If you have a point to make, make it. Or if you have a credible source, which is to say, a scientific source, to cite, use it.

 

[wilsoncole]

Yes, I do. Perhaps that is why he quit to become a full time minister.

Quit what?
The man is now in a teaching position, transferring his research information to many others.

(I wonder why this PhD has never presented a paper in support of Creationism? A perusal of his submitted work includes peer reviewed articles on some ideas on the nuclear physics of the sun, but nothing about how nuclear physics supports Creationism.)

No need! There is no such thing as creationism. That's a derogatory slang attached to believers in creation by secularists. Creation is not an "ism," which converts it into a human philosophy. Glossary of philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is a fact that needs no proof nor theories because it is so obvious. Much like existence, which needs no proof nor theories. These are things that cannot be undone. Therefore, arguments against existence and creation amount to nothing but a collossal waste of time.

SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING!

If God didn't do it, it couldn't do itself and science can't do it, then who did?

No, I am not. Are you a Biologist? Geologist? Anthropologist?

Why are you asking me that? My question was directed to the man in the outhouse. It was he who questioned the man's credibility and credentials. I never questioned yours.

The challenges refer to the mythical creation story in relation to the fossil record. Not why one becomes a Jehovah's Witness.

Then I can see how you could miss the point of the story entirely.
It was presented to show Autodidact that her statement is incorrect.
Accepting the Bible's point of view does not amount to a rejection of science, as she claims. That is why there are many scientists, employed and active in their fields, who are practicing Jehovah's Witnesses.

Because a literal reading of Genesis is in direct conflict with the fossil record.

Misreading the fossil record will also give you that impression.

That certain parts of the Bible were written to guide its followers in what the writers considered ethical behavior.

The writers? How would they know? They were humans, just as we are.

Well, first of all, I asked what the Bible had to say on Fossil remains, and you quote pseudoscientific nonsense from a JW pamphlet.

Nonsense! When I first heard Chinese, I thought it was nonsense, too. I take that to mean that you are unable to refute anything that it states.
Where the information originates is not nearly as important as whether or not it is the truth.

Secondly, the author of the pamphlet ignores that the fossil record not only contradicts a young earth as proposed in a literal reading of the Bible, but that there is absolutely no evidence, either geological or through the fossil record, that a world wide flood ever caused mass destruction of flora and fauna.

Misreading the fossil record will also give you that impression.
That type of reasoning must bring you some measure of comfort, so you choose to remain asleep.

Although you gotta love this bit of reasoning..
"Proof that the Flood occurred is not dependent on such fossils and frozen animal remains."

It is not! Jesus Christ saw it all. It is he who said: "....and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away." (Matthew 24:39)
You must believe that you are much smarter than he is, but you have not exhibited it by your writings.

Thus giving an easy out. If the evidence does not match Biblical literacy, go with the Bible.

Literacy? I do not believe that is what you meant to say.:foot:
Biblical literacy cannot mislead in any way, but Biblical illiteracy does.

Also, the authors claim that transitional fossils are lacking is completely dishonest.

You are unable to recognize honesty. Manufactured evidence tends to mislead people, too. Remember Piltdown man? and how about "Archeoraptor Liaoningensis" to mention just a couple?

Could the hundreds of efficient "zippers" that make up a single feather have arisen by chance? Do scientists have any evidence that a scale actually developed into a feather?
"Strangely enough, although modern birds possess both scales (especially on their feet) and feathers, no intermediate stage between the two has been discovered on either fossil or living forms." (Integrated Principles of Zoology)
Would you say that to the authors of this book?

Furthermore:​

"A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earth’s creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat. The evolutionary view that reptilian scales and fins eventually developed into feathered wings is both fanciful and baseless. The fossils of birds called by scientists Archaeopteryx (or, ancient wing) and Archaeornis (or, ancient bird), though showing teeth and a long vertebrated tail, also show that they were completely feathered, had feet equipped for perching, and had fully developed wings. No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory." (Insight vol. 1 p. 316)

And shows a lack of understanding of not only biological evolution, but also the conditions that must be present for fossilization to occur.

OK - how about hearing from someone who does understand? Accepting the Bible's point of view does not amount to a rejection of science.

KENNETH LLOYD TANAKA

PROFILE: I am a geologist presently employed by the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona. For almost three decades, I have participated in scientific research in various fields of geology, including planetary geology. Dozens of my research articles and geologic maps of Mars have been published in accredited scientific journals. ​

​

​

​

​

​

​

"I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have originated without a powerful Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also find a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. This book gives numerous examples of scientific facts in my field of expertise, such as that the earth is spherical in shape and hangs “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) These realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.​

Think of the way we are made. We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate, and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be."​

Ask yourself, ‘How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution?’ The geologic record is incomplete, complex, and confusing. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies. And while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. ​

Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles.​

Both as a scientist and as a Bible student, I search for the whole truth, which reconciles all known facts and observations to reach the most accurate understanding. To me, belief in the Creator makes the most sense."​

(AWAKE! 9/06 p. 22)

 

[wilsoncole]

Are you?
Or are you going to keep posting pseudoscientific JW pamphlets?

Am I what?
This question was directed to Primordial Annihilator and was associated with another statement:
"Nobody knows everything so everyone is ignorant of something. That includes you.
But......
Are you willing to put it to the test?"
You want me to test you in order to see if you are not ignorant of something?
I can do that, but you don't have to test me. I admit that I do not know everything.

Pamphlets:
Nobody forces you to read them so stop complaining.
You can post whatever you like.

 

[wilsoncole]

The Bible and science does not disagree.
That's interesting. So you agree that the world is about 4.56 billion years old,

The earth - Yes!

that the universe consists mostly of empty space,

Yes!

that the earth revolves around the sun,

Yes!

that the Theory of Evolution tells us how we get the variety of species on earth

,
NO!

and that the Jews were never slaves in Egypt?

NO!

Science does not care what the Bible says.

Science does not say that - YOU do. Since you are a lawyer and not a scientist, can you really speak for all of science?

It only makes an independent attempt to learn the truth.

False! In the words of one scientist with 30 years of experience:
"...while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles." (Does the existence of physical laws that govern the world prove the existence of a creator? - Yahoo! Answers)

Is your position that science and the Bible agree?

When things are provable - YES!

Then why do you reject science?

Here we go again:
I reject what the ToE teaches about the living things on earth.

A Scientist Examines The Bible

The Bible contains various statements for which independent physical evidence is lacking. For example, what it says about an invisible realm inhabited by spirit creatures cannot be proved—or disproved—scientifically. Do such unprovable references necessarily put the Bible at odds with science?​

I have not the slightest interest in your JW propaganda. They are notorious liars. If you have a point to make, make it. Or if you have a credible source, which is to say, a scientific source, to cite, use it.

I have not found them to be liars and will not be influenced by you into thinking so.
You will read what I write - or not - and there is nothing you can do about that.
Besides, I thought I would never hear from you again. Can't keep your word, eh?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Quit what?
The man is now in a teaching position, transferring his research information to many others.

Quit as a Nuclear Physics at NASA, and yes, he now has a teaching position at Alabama A&M where his research focus is on Lens Design, Fiber Optics, X-Ray Optics.
Also allowing him to continue as a full time minister.

However, that is completely irrelevant to what the fossil record says.

No need! There is no such thing as creationism. That's a derogatory slang attached to believers in creation by secularists. Creation is not an "ism," which converts it into a human philosophy.

You may feel it is derogatory, it is, however, an accurate description of a religious metaphysical belief that claims that a supernatural being created the universe and/or designed and created man in its own image.

SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING!
If God didn't do it, it couldn't do itself and science can't do it, then who did?

Is God Something? Or Nothing?

Accepting the Bible's point of view does not amount to a rejection of science, as she claims. That is why there are many scientists, employed and active in their fields, who are practicing Jehovah's Witnesses.

A literalistic interpretation of the Bible is in direct conflict with known biology, geology, hydrology, physics, genetics, etc, etc, etc,

Misreading the fossil record will also give you that impression.

I believe you are unqualified to make your own interpretations of the fossil record. Perhaps you should leave it to the experts.

The writers? [of the Bible] How would they know? They were humans, just as we are.

And humans are prone to mistakes, aren't they?

It is not! Jesus Christ saw it all. It is he who said: "....and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away." (Matthew 24:39)
You must believe that you are much smarter than he is, but you have not exhibited it by your writings.

Smarter? Who knows? But I am certainly better informed on natural history than the writer of Mathew.
2000 years of human research and technology does that.

Remember Piltdown man? and how about "Archeoraptor Liaoningensis" to mention just a couple?

Yes, famous examples of hoaxes perpetrated upon science. Later to be exposed as frauds by those in the scientific community through the extensive use of the scientific method.

Could the hundreds of efficient "zippers" that make up a single feather have arisen by chance? Do scientists have any evidence that a scale actually developed into a feather?
"Strangely enough, although modern birds possess both scales (especially on their feet) and feathers, no intermediate stage between the two has been discovered on either fossil or living forms." (Integrated Principles of Zoology)
Would you say that to the authors of this book?

I would say congratulations for leaving this quote out of the current edition of Integrated Principles of Zoology.
You should keep up on modern research on scutes and feathers.


​

OK - how about hearing from someone who does understand? Accepting the Bible's point of view does not amount to a rejection of science.

KENNETH LLOYD TANAKA

PROFILE: I am a geologist presently employed by the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona. For almost three decades, I have participated in scientific research in various fields of geology, including planetary geology. Dozens of my research articles and geologic maps of Mars have been published in accredited scientific journals. ​

"I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have originated without a powerful Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also find a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. This book gives numerous examples of scientific facts in my field of expertise, such as that the earth is spherical in shape and hangs “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) These realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.​

Think of the way we are made. We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate, and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be."​

Ask yourself, ‘How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution?’ The geologic record is incomplete, complex, and confusing. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies. And while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. ​

Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles.​

Both as a scientist and as a Bible student, I search for the whole truth, which reconciles all known facts and observations to reach the most accurate understanding. To me, belief in the Creator makes the most sense."​

(AWAKE! 9/06 p. 22)

YAY!!! A specialist in Mars topography and geology, (check out his published papers), believes the bible conforms to science.

Now what, should we clog up the forum with the thousands who find the Bible scientifically inept?

 

[Amill]

Misreading the fossil record will also give you that impression.

Then tell us how one is supposed to read it. I'd like to hear you go over the details and explain the characteristics of the fossil record. You know, why there are different species of humans, fossils that fit the predictions made by evolution, why we only find fossils of aquatic animals at a certain depth, why I can find coral fossils out here in Indiana, ect, ect, ect.

 

[newhope101]

I am responding to post a while ago from Atodidact that posted her Tiktaalik evidence.
Here it is again in Wiki Auto. The research used is cited in Wiki. Go learn something..... You have obviously heard nothing of this recent finding or you would not have needed to post your outdated evidence.

Wiki Tiktaalik
Tetrapod footprints found in Poland and reported in Nature in January 2010 were "securely dated" at 10 million years older than the oldest known elpistostegids[8] (of which Tiktaalik is an example) implying that animals like Tiktaalik were "late-surviving relics" possessing features that actually evolved around 400 million years ago.[9]



So yet again another example of evidence that was contradicted by newer evidence and another convoluted theory is invented for the cover story.The sad fact remains that creationists have the evidence. Evolutionists only have theories to back up Toe. Todays evidence is tomorrows folly for evoutionists. I understand why they get so frustrated.

 

[outhouse]

The sad fact remains that creationists have the evidence.

picking on science because one is ignorant is not considered to be evidence of any kind.

creationist have no evidence and they never will, you cannot prove a myth is real.

a 10m year discrepancy changes nothing of ToE

and you have been explained this already many many times.