I’d like to thank Polycarp among some others, for causing me to question the literalness of some of the Bible.
The main thing, the very main thing, was that Jesus came to earth and was a substitute for our sins, and a reconciliation between mankidn and God.
The rest is sortof filler.
So, thanks guys.
Guess I’m not a “fundie” anymore, not that thats bad!
Polycarp, youre a teacher of the Word.
Thanks, that clears things up a bit!
I want to echo what Vanilla said; Incidently do you preach, are you a minister?
That’s a good question, and the answer is no. Moving on to the next obvious question: Dammit, Poly, why not!?
You really want to say “Dammit” when talking about Poly being a preacher?
Well, I do seem to tend to “preach” a lot!
From “An Outline of the Faith, commonly called the Catechism” in the Book of Common Prayer:
So in a very restricted sense, I am “a minister” – but I’m a layman, not ordained to clergy status. But I have been wondering if maybe I have a Call…
Based on your insightful posts on the SDMB, I’d say you definitely do.
It only seems reasonable that the tree Adam and Eve ate from had to be mature in order to bear fruit. Elements of nature had to be mature in order for them to survive. Also, i have heard of fossils being found in “layers” that do not coincide with the time from evolution claims that they existed. How is this explained?
This statement goes back to one of my previous post talking about evolution trying to prove a predetermined end. How do you know that only 10%,20% or 50% of the creatures are fossilized? I’m going to assume it is because evolution says there should be more examples of transition that what are accounted for. So the evolutionary theory itself is justifiying evidence that is used to prove the evolutionary theory? That seems circular to me. Proving a fact by the theory doesnt make much sense to me. What happens if the theory changes? Does the proven fact also change? Maybe the “10%” is all there is.
I could not agree with you more. Nothing is more comforting than knowing that no matter how many times you read the biblical account of creation it will always be the same. Whether one believes in the gap theory between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 or long day theory (a day with the lord is as a 1,000 years). The bottom line is that God did it and it will always be that way.
P.S. thanks for all of the help on the formating. I think this post came out better than the last one.
So you accept that Adam Eve were “real” people? If this is the case, how do you get around the incest issue with their children, and where did Cain’s wife come from?
I’m afraid you’re going to have to elaborate more on the “layers” aspect. I’m sure there are many explanations for it, but I’d have to have more information or perhaps a cite on these fossils before I could go further.
IIRC a lot fewer creatures actually get fossilized than the number you submit. Evolution doesn’t say that there should be more fossils, detractors of the theory say that. It seems like you are trying to make the case that Evolution is tauntology, it’s not, it has more evidence to it than just fossil layers. Take virus’s for example (virusi?).
No. We can see how rare fossils are, simply by looking at the pre-fossil remains of animals that die around us. Deer, racoons, squirrels, and other critters die in the woods behind my house all the time. Their remains are then scattered and eaten by other racoons or dogs or skunks. It is rare to find a corpse that has not begun to rot away to nothingness. In my 17 years of owning this property, I doubt that even one critter that has died out in the woods has begun to fossilize.
In order to become a fossil, the animal must die in a way that preserves its skeleton, indicating a very rapid burial in an anaerobic soil. That soil must then be permeated by the sort of minerals that will seep into the bones and petrify in ways that preserve the original shape of the bones as distinct from the surrounding soil.
Given what we know about the number of events that occur today to support all those conditions, we can conclude that such events are extremely rare. Animals would generally need to be caught in a mudslide or die in very wet, swampy soil to even begin the process, and that exact location where they died must then undergo the specific subsequent events of mineralization and increasing pressure, (despite the fact that erosion, whiuch is pretty much ever-present, will always work against those conditions), in order to complete the process.
To continue with the previous posts clarifying the process: “evolution” says nothing about fossilization. The mere fact that the fossil record exists adds support to the theory, but even if the record did not exist at all, it would not change our perception of how evolution works today. The presence or absence of the fossil record has no bearing on whether natural selection, as one example, can function as put forth by Darwin.
The fact that the fossil record does exist is a result of processes described by tomndebb. And the fact that it does contain remains which one might predict ought to have existed, based on evolutionary theories, adds not only support for those theories but also for the relative timescale over which evolutionary proceses operate.
In other words, the fossil record acts as a very handy testing ground for many evolutionary theories. It would certainly help if it were more complete, but that it isn’t is not the fault of the theories or the scientists making them - it’s just “the way it is”.
So where exactly does evoluntion get its timeline if not from the fossil records?
Wouldn’t the results of these events result in the fossils being found in multiple layers rather than individual layers such as seen in this link. http://www.nwcreation.net/caps/articles/floodstrata.html
[Fixed quote tags. – MEB]
To go for one classic example, it’s thought that the Adbatanian epoch of the Cambrian lasted about five million years. During this period the first large-bodied (from a fraction of an inch to about two feet long) multicellular animals in the fossil record are found. All the creatures known from this time are marine; there were no known land animals. Trilobites and hard-skeleton sponges and other related creatures are relatively common in the rocks; the shells of brachiopods (think clams, though they’re an unrelated group that were once clams’ greatest competitors) are almost as common.
Underwater mud deposits where these sorts of creatures lived were probably about as common then as now – which is to say, it’s hard to find a substantial geographic area outside a desert where there are not muddy-bottomed ponds, lakes, and/or seashores. But to preserve soft-bodied creatures, one must rapidly transport this muddy area suitable for supporting life into an anaerobic environment where life cannot survive. Having it slump down a slope into a neighboring hypersaline or oversulfurated basin works. And so we have exactly four deposits of softbodied fauna known from the Adbatanian – the famous Burgess shale and another quarry a few miles away in British Columbia, one in the mountains of western China, and one in northern Greenland.
Likewise, AFAIK only one softbodied fauna from the entire Devonian period is known – at Mazon Creek in the greater Chicago area. Perhaps half of what we know about Jurassic flying creatures comes from one limestone quarry in Germany – all known Archaeopteryx remains are from there, and pterosaurs were common.
Fossils are rare compared to the probable amount of things living on earth at the time the creature-destined-to-fossilize died. And yet we’re able to track major lines of descent for a lot of creatures in substantial detail – there are 26 species of Triceratops covering a 10-to-15-million-year span, each with slight but significant variation from the others, and a wide array of other horned dinosaurs in the same general group of strata.
And whenever one is able to date a given stratum by one of the long-lived radioisotopes, or place not-before and not-after dates for it by virtue of finding a layer of them in volcanic ash or lava or whatever laid down before or after them, the dating is always fairly accurate – the last dinosaur-bearing rocks work out to just about 65 million years ago, the last trilobites to about 320 million years ago, the strange Archaeocyathids, which resemble a two-layered Dixie cup cone and are thought to have been a relative of sponges, to just about 630 million years ago, and so on.
I’ve alwasy wondered about those flaming swords that guarded the tree of life after Adam ate the forbidden tree.
Is the tree still there? Or anywhere?
Some lady (m.j.agee) claims that Heaven is Saturn, so the flaming swords which turn every which way is the asteroid belt.:rolleyes:
I was kind of hoping that heaven would be a little more comfortable than Saturn…
I would note that the “layers” being trumpeted at that site are layers of ash and mud, not stone. They have not yet been subjected to the time period required for geological stratification. (The very fact that the author can see 17 “layers” indicates that erosion has begun destroying the loose amalgam that makes up the layers–and in fewer than 20 years.) If those layers actually survive for a few million years, they will show to any future geologist a compacted version of the same basic soil/rock, varying only in density. Dating techniques based on chemical or radiation will show them to all be the same age. There will be no fossils from different ages within them. (There may be no fossils, at all.)
It takes a geological age to create a geological layer. The fact that some current soil or ash is layered (in density) does not indicate that what appear to be layers to us will survive as layers for another 2,000,000 years or so, after the natural aging processes of erosion, additional deposition, and the pressures related to deposition have occurred.
So its possible that the strata layers are not accurate also. Again i ask, where does evolution get its timeline. It has been stated that fossils are not used and that the strata layers may be corrupted because of erosion, etc.
No, it is not possible that Geological strata are “corrupted.” What tom wsa trying to tell you is that the “layers” in your cite are not geological strata. What we see as layers now are not geologically significant. Take a look at this excerpt from your link:
The part that I bolded is factually incorrect. No geologist would count these as geoligical strata any more than they would count the layers in a peanut buster parfait. Not all perceived “layers” are counted as geological strata. As tom said, it takes a geological age to create a geological layer. Everything you see at the Mt. St. Helen site will be compressed over the next couple of million years into a single geological stratum.
“Evolution”, like geology, gets its timeline from radiometric dating. However, assume for the moment that radiometric dating produces erroneous dates: how does this affect the theory, or fact, of evolution? Ultimately, it doesn’t. It may affect the rate of evolution, but says nothing about the processes involved. It would not change the fact that the fossil record does, indeed, show a continuous turnover of populations; that populations do not transcend strata; that there are definite examples of gradistic transitions found between groups present in higher and lower strata, etc.
As for the timeline, it’s not accurate to say that fossils are not used, I think others were trying to say that fossils are not necessary to prove evolution. Fossils do help, though.
The timeline can be established by observing the fossil record as it is preserved in the the geological strata. The older the stratum, the simpler the fossils. You never find a mesozoic fossil, for instance, in a paleolithic stratum. The fossil record corresponds perfectly with what evolutionary theory would predict. There is never an anomaly (you never find a sabre-tooth tiger in the triassic period, you never find a dinosaur in the ice age). In order to deny evolution you have to postulate that, by some incredible coincidence, the geological and paleontological data has randomly fallen into a pattern that just so happens to look like evolution has occurred, and that it looks like that 100% of the time without a single slip, without a single alga out of place.