nogods4me

Yes Beach, fossils have always been found "ordered" a human fossil has never been found before a certain time, a dinosaur fossil, never after, no dolphin fossils found in with the trilobites, no eagle fossils in with archie,etc, etc, etc. they are layered, how would a flood explain this layering? either they would be mixed together randomly, or the heavier boned would have settled out of the flood first, so that we should have layers of large fossils, followeed by layers of medium fossils, folowed by layers of small fossils. Is that what the record shows?

and we still await your explanation on how all forms of radiometric dating are faulty, and yet they give remarkably similar results, so that amazingly they are all faulty to exactly the same degee.

Beach_MU

Don't kid yourself and confuse the idea of you being strongly biased with physically violent. My statement about your "biased hatred of Christianity", while strongly worded, does not mean that you are physically violent towards Christianity, but I have no doubt you are strongly biased against it. The following statement about the Peace Corp was simply in response to your senseless use of such a claim as being evidence of something about your beliefs and nature. My point was that being in the Peace Corp means nothing and suggests nothing about you personally. There are peaceful people in the Peace Corp and there are violent people in the Peace Corp. If you took the comments as a personal attack, it's not my problem.
As far as my statement:
You may very well be a very peaceful person but given the conversation up to this point I haven't seen many signs of it.
I should have used the word "unbiased" in place of "peaceful", but if your feelings are so easily hurt by using the wrong word then you probably shouldn't be on this forum.

Ah, the last gasp defense, the old "out of context" argument. Your rhetorical flailing here has gone from the clouds of confusion to the abyss of pathos.

One thing that makes little to no sense is to make this sort of statement. It says nothing about nor does it do anything to dispute the argument that you use something out of context. Rather, it is simply a statement that is targeting at discrediting me as opposed to my statement. And I assure you "Your rhetorical flailing" is not a phrase that suggests you're simply talking about my belief system. So don't kid yourself into believing that you are above personally attacking someone and also realize that as in any discussion someone can type an incorrect word or use a word that carries with it more meaning than was intended, which may be the case here(if so feel free to explain it more thoroughly).

Beach_MU

We have long ago established this statement but it still has no evidence supplied to back up the claim. As far as the idea that a flood would cause heavier bones to settle first, it is true that a heavier object sinks faster but given the time frame in which the creatures would have died(quickly) and the time frame necessary to make fossils (a long time) you wouldn't have these distinct layers as you suggest.

and we still await your explanation on how all forms of radiometric dating are faulty, and yet they give remarkably similar results, so that amazingly they are all faulty to exactly the same degee.

Regarding this statement, am I on a timeline here that I am supposed to provide this evidence for you at a moment's notice?

nogods4me

Ah, but we do have distinct layers, exactly as evolution suggests.

Creationist arguement 1) there are not enough fossils to prove evoulution. if evolution is true where are all the fossils?

Creationist arguement 2) there are too many fossils to be explained by anything other than a global flood, how do you explain so many fossils?

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Jack the Bodiless

Beach_MU:

Are you familiar with the evolutionary "Tree of Life" of common descent?

That is the pattern of the fossil record.

The oldest fossils are of microbes, and nothing else.

Then there are various marine organisms.

Then arthropods (ancestors of insects) and fish.

Then tetrapods (fish with legs).

Then amphibians.

Then reptiles.

Then therapsids (mammal-like reptiles).

Then mammals, dinosaurs, birds.

Then (after the demise of the dinosaurs) primates and other modern mammals.

Then apes.

Then hominids.

Then humans.

This is the sequence. These are the layers. This is the evidence on which common descent is proposed (actually there is plenty of additional evidence, but this will do for starters). This is a summary of all the millions of fossils discovered by all the fossil-hunters on Earth.

There have never been any exceptions. There are no elephants among the dinosaurs.

It is absolutely, categorically impossible for the Biblical Flood to layer millions of fossils in this sequence. All creationist attempts to explain the fossil record have utterly failed. Any creationist who claims otherwise is lying to you.

Jack the Bodiless

This is an example of a creationist lie:
Exactly the opposite is true. With the exception of the earliest forms, every single creature in the fossil record has ancestors. There is no "advanced" creature that just appears from nowhere. Even if we don't currently have the "parent", we have an earlier fossil that fits as a "grandparent".

Maybe you should hang out in the Evolution/Creation forum for a while.

Jayhawker Soule

Beach_MU,

Forgive me if you've touched on this, but what is your estimate for the date and length of the Flood?

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Radcliffe Emerson

Yes, but Jesus said Peter was the rock and Jesus was founding his church on the rock. Peter started the Catholic Church, therefore, by the words of Jesus himself, the Catholics are indeed the only true Christian church.
This is the statement you'll get from Catholics when the issue of Orthodox and Protestants arise, and by that biblical definition, the Catholics are right.

Radcliffe Emerson

The bible does not claim to be inerrant. The bible doesn't even claim to be the inspired word of "god".
Men have made these claims over the centuries, not "god".

And to me, that's no different from any other religion on the planet claiming to be the only correct one, humans are making the claim, not a supreme being.

Dark Jedi

This has strayed back on topic. Thanks folks.
I have been giving this thread a lot of leeway due to the gray areas between biblical accuracy and paleontology/evolution. I need you to please try to keep from straying too far off.
If not, I propose moving it to Evolution/Creation.