turnorburn
Member
Your problem of not being able to find what you want lies in the fact that the earth is 6000 years old not 450 million..
Here's a map..
http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-bible-text/index.html
tob
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Your problem of not being able to find what you want lies in the fact that the earth is 6000 years old not 450 million..
Here's a map..
http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-bible-text/index.html
tob
Barbarian
Member
Barbarian suggests:
I would be interested in your evidence for any modern species of horseshoe crab existing 450 million years ago. No one seems to have ever found such a thing. There were ferns 450 million years ago, too. But not any modern species of fern.
If your point is that living things change over time, and some major groups change less than others, then the horseshoe crab is a good example. The notion that living things don't change over time, is refuted by they example of horseshoe crabs.
If that were the truth, it would be easy to find the same species of modern horseshoe crab in the Silurian period. But no such thing has been found. Which is another reason your unbiblical guess about the age of the Earth is wrong.
I would be interested in your evidence for any modern species of horseshoe crab existing 450 million years ago. No one seems to have ever found such a thing. There were ferns 450 million years ago, too. But not any modern species of fern.
If your point is that living things change over time, and some major groups change less than others, then the horseshoe crab is a good example. The notion that living things don't change over time, is refuted by they example of horseshoe crabs.
If that were the truth, it would be easy to find the same species of modern horseshoe crab in the Silurian period. But no such thing has been found. Which is another reason your unbiblical guess about the age of the Earth is wrong.
turnorburn
Member
Ah! you didn't read the map.. No videos no fraud, just think everything you want to know right under your nose..
tob
Doulos Iesou
Member
Well now we're getting somewhere. We are starting to get to how Rollo does epistemology, how you believe it is possible to know something.I love you Doulos.
You're still talking to me.
It seems that you think knowledge about anything, from salvation to plunging a toilet must be supernaturally revealed by God either through his word or through prayer. Is that correct?
Does this apply to everything in your life, and is this your experience, i.e. did you learn how to drive through prayer?
Well, I did get you to mention God, now if I can just get you to mention Jesus, then I'll have another answer to prayer.
Doulos Iesou
Member
See here:
I have no problem with Jesus, in fact I love Jesus and have devoted my life to worshiping him and following in his footsteps. I don't see what he has to do with the topic of discussion, which is the age of the earth.
Now, we were starting to narrow down how you as a person gain knowledge. Could you please advise if my assessment was correct:
Please understand that we are in a Christian forum with many sub-forums, each one being Christian.
Therefore, I deem it appropriate to discuss Jesus in every thread in every forum.
Now you say Jesus has nothing to do with the topic, and I say if that is true, then why are you discussing it on a Christian forum?
There are many science forums out there in internet land to discuss topics without Jesus.
Doulos Iesou
Member
Holy smokes Rollo, you seem entirely incapable of answering simple questions without bringing up concluded conversations.
I understand this is your opinion. I am inviting you to explain how Jesus is involved with how you know anything, can you elaborate.
R
Rick W
Guest
That's enough.
Concur
Barbarian
Member
The "map" doesn't show any such thing, either. As I pointed out, the assumption of a young Earth is neither Biblical nor supported by the evidence. As I said, the horseshoe crab is a great demonstration of gradual evolution, since no living species has been found in the fossil record, even though there have been horseshoe crabs for a very long time.
Corn Pop
Member
I dont think things evolve over time or believe in evolution but i think living things cross breed and turn mungrel and into different species and change that way. Everything is some form of mungrel from the natural original. No animal is pure or man. People call a horse or dog purebreed. Yea right.
Last edited:
Hi Barbarian,
Not sure I buy that logic. Let's look at these two pictures. These two creatures are by far and large close enough to constitute the "same creature". God has allowed genetic variations within species ( kinds) so creatures can adapt to earths ever changing environments (micro evolution)
Even from a old earth perspective, the "changes" in these two creatures below is so minimal that it hardly warrants debate. Darwin noticed variation in birds beaks and they were all alive. Surely after 450 million years ( your stance) or 10,000 years ( my stance) a small amount of genetic variance would be expected in these crabs.
In fact, I would argue that we will probably never find the "exact" species anywhere in fossil record as the micro evolution does do its magic. Those crabs in the fossil record where of a differnt time, place -and environment. As a YEC, I would expect to see exaclty what we do! The world is young!
turnorburn
Member
You still haven't searched the scriptures, its there if you want to see it.. science can't tell us what it was like before sin entered creation can you?
tob
turnorburn
Member
Evidence?
In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic
- Another Evolution Fraud By Tim Friend, USA TODAY
- Another Hoax by Owen D. Olbricht
- Archaeoraptor Flight Aborted by John Morris
- Archaeoraptor: National Geographic's Biggest Embarassment by Craig McClarren
- Archaeoraptor: Phony ‘feathered’ fossil by Jonathan Sarfati
- Evolution Hoax The Archaeoraptor Fraud
- Evolution: The Fraud That Shapes The Worldview of Our Kids By Bob Harsh and Chuck Colson. Origins Insights March 2000 Newsletter by the Creation Science Fellowship
- National Geographic backs down – sort of! By Carl Wieland
- Smithsonian criticizes National Geographic’s Dino-to-Bird Claims revealing the lack of consensus on the matter among scientists, despite National Geographic’s sensationalistic “propagandizing”.
- Smithsonian critiques National Geographic in open letter archaeoraptor
- The Missing Link That Wasn’t ... National Geographic’s Bird Dinosaur Flew Again the Facts by Nancy Pearcey,. Access Research Network
- The Archaeoraptor Fraud – by Charles Colson
tob
Barbarian, the Bible totally confirms and insinuates a young earth.
Was Adam a real man? Eve? If so, when did they live? Where? If not then who?
Jesus considered Adam a literal man. The human race had to have a beginning at some point why not just as the Bible says? Is God not capable of such a feat? Surely He is. The genealogy lists in Genesis leave no major wiggle room for such long ages. They just don't. The Bible clearly lays out a young earth senereo. The beauty is, evidence shows a young earth. If it did not I would have to consider the Bible bunk.
Make making the appearance of great age is no problem at all. Jesus turned water into wine instantly, but we all know it takes a month to make wine. God made the whole creation "look old" just as he created two fully formed adult humans, not toddlers. Peace.
Barbarian
Member
Barbarian chuckles:
The "map" doesn't show any such thing, either. As I pointed out, the assumption of a young Earth is neither Biblical nor supported by the evidence. As I said, the horseshoe crab is a great demonstration of gradual evolution, since no living species has been found in the fossil record, even though there have been horseshoe crabs for a very long time.
Lack of such fossils is pretty good evidence. If you think such fossils exist, it's up to you to show that they do. I've pointed this out to scores of creationists, and so far, no one has found any. I'm not holding my breath, but I'll look at whatever you find.
Great example. Nat. Geographic (a popular magazine, not a scientific journal) bought a fossil and put it in their magazine, even though scientists urged them to wait for peer review. They ignored the warnings, and published anyway. And then, when scientists analyzed it, they found it was a combination of two (very significant and valuable) fossils which had been carefully fitted together.
A great example of why science is more reliable than other ways of understanding the world.
The Czerkases contacted paleontologist Phil Currie, who contacted the National Geographic Society. Currie agreed to study the fossil on condition that it was eventually returned to China. The National Geographic Society intended to get the fossil formally published in the peer-reviewed science journal Nature, and then follow up immediately with a press conference and an issue of National Geographic.[7] Editor Bill Allen asked that all members of the project keep the fossil secret, so that the magazine would have a scoop on the story.
Slade and the Czerkases intended the fossil to be the "crown jewel" of the Dinosaur Museum and planned to keep it on display there for five years. Sloan says that he flew to Utah in the spring of 1999 to convince Stephen Czerkas to return the fossil to China immediately after publication, or he would not write about it for National Geographic and Currie would not work on it. Czerkas then agreed. Currie then contacted the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, and National Geographic flew the IVPP's Xu Xing to Utah to be part of the "Archaeoraptor" team.[8]
During the initial examination of the fossil on March 6, 1999 it had already become clear to Currie that the left and right feet mirrored each other perfectly and that the fossil had been completed by using both slab and counterslab. He also noticed no connection could be seen between the tail and the body. In July 1999, Currie and the Czerkases brought the fossil to the High-Resolution X-ray CT Facility of the University of Texas (Austin) founded and operated by Dr. Timothy Rowe to make CT scans. Rowe, having made the scans on July 29, determined that they indicated that the bottom fragments, showing the tail and the lower legs, were not part of the larger fossil. He informed the Czerkases on August 2 that there was a chance of the whole being a fraud. During a subsequent discussion Rowe and Currie were pressured by the Czerkases to keep their reservations private.[8]
Currie in the first week of September sent his preparator, Kevin Aulenback, to the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding to prepare the fossil for better study. Aulenback concluded that the fossil was "a composite specimen of at least 3 specimens...with a maximum...of five...separate specimens", but the Czerkases angrily denied this and Aulenbeck only reported this to Currie. Currie did not inform National Geographic of these problems.[8]
On August 13, 1999, the team submitted a manuscript titled "A New Toothed Bird With a Dromaeosaur-like Tail" under the names of Stephen Czerkas, Currie, Rowe, and Xu, to the journal Nature in London. The paper mentions in two places, and includes a figure illustrating the point that, one of the legs and the tail are counterparts that were composited into the main slab.[8]
On August 20 Nature rejected the paper, indicating to the Czerkases that National Geographic had refused to delay publication, leaving too little time for peer review. The authors then submitted the paper to Science, which sent it out for peer review. Two reviewers informed Science that "the specimen was smuggled out of China and illegally purchased" and that the fossil had been "doctored" in China "to enhance its value." Science then rejected the paper. According to Sloan, the Czerkases did not inform National Geographic about the details of the two rejections.[7]
By that time the November issue of National Geographic was already in preparation for printing, but "Archaeoraptor" was never formally published in any peer-reviewed journal.
National Geographic went ahead and published without peer review.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor
And now you know the truth. Not exactly the story you were told, is it?
The "map" doesn't show any such thing, either. As I pointed out, the assumption of a young Earth is neither Biblical nor supported by the evidence. As I said, the horseshoe crab is a great demonstration of gradual evolution, since no living species has been found in the fossil record, even though there have been horseshoe crabs for a very long time.
Lack of such fossils is pretty good evidence. If you think such fossils exist, it's up to you to show that they do. I've pointed this out to scores of creationists, and so far, no one has found any. I'm not holding my breath, but I'll look at whatever you find.
Great example. Nat. Geographic (a popular magazine, not a scientific journal) bought a fossil and put it in their magazine, even though scientists urged them to wait for peer review. They ignored the warnings, and published anyway. And then, when scientists analyzed it, they found it was a combination of two (very significant and valuable) fossils which had been carefully fitted together.
A great example of why science is more reliable than other ways of understanding the world.
The Czerkases contacted paleontologist Phil Currie, who contacted the National Geographic Society. Currie agreed to study the fossil on condition that it was eventually returned to China. The National Geographic Society intended to get the fossil formally published in the peer-reviewed science journal Nature, and then follow up immediately with a press conference and an issue of National Geographic.[7] Editor Bill Allen asked that all members of the project keep the fossil secret, so that the magazine would have a scoop on the story.
Slade and the Czerkases intended the fossil to be the "crown jewel" of the Dinosaur Museum and planned to keep it on display there for five years. Sloan says that he flew to Utah in the spring of 1999 to convince Stephen Czerkas to return the fossil to China immediately after publication, or he would not write about it for National Geographic and Currie would not work on it. Czerkas then agreed. Currie then contacted the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, and National Geographic flew the IVPP's Xu Xing to Utah to be part of the "Archaeoraptor" team.[8]
During the initial examination of the fossil on March 6, 1999 it had already become clear to Currie that the left and right feet mirrored each other perfectly and that the fossil had been completed by using both slab and counterslab. He also noticed no connection could be seen between the tail and the body. In July 1999, Currie and the Czerkases brought the fossil to the High-Resolution X-ray CT Facility of the University of Texas (Austin) founded and operated by Dr. Timothy Rowe to make CT scans. Rowe, having made the scans on July 29, determined that they indicated that the bottom fragments, showing the tail and the lower legs, were not part of the larger fossil. He informed the Czerkases on August 2 that there was a chance of the whole being a fraud. During a subsequent discussion Rowe and Currie were pressured by the Czerkases to keep their reservations private.[8]
Currie in the first week of September sent his preparator, Kevin Aulenback, to the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding to prepare the fossil for better study. Aulenback concluded that the fossil was "a composite specimen of at least 3 specimens...with a maximum...of five...separate specimens", but the Czerkases angrily denied this and Aulenbeck only reported this to Currie. Currie did not inform National Geographic of these problems.[8]
On August 13, 1999, the team submitted a manuscript titled "A New Toothed Bird With a Dromaeosaur-like Tail" under the names of Stephen Czerkas, Currie, Rowe, and Xu, to the journal Nature in London. The paper mentions in two places, and includes a figure illustrating the point that, one of the legs and the tail are counterparts that were composited into the main slab.[8]
On August 20 Nature rejected the paper, indicating to the Czerkases that National Geographic had refused to delay publication, leaving too little time for peer review. The authors then submitted the paper to Science, which sent it out for peer review. Two reviewers informed Science that "the specimen was smuggled out of China and illegally purchased" and that the fossil had been "doctored" in China "to enhance its value." Science then rejected the paper. According to Sloan, the Czerkases did not inform National Geographic about the details of the two rejections.[7]
By that time the November issue of National Geographic was already in preparation for printing, but "Archaeoraptor" was never formally published in any peer-reviewed journal.
National Geographic went ahead and published without peer review.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor
And now you know the truth. Not exactly the story you were told, is it?
Barbarian
Member
If you think a chimpanzee and a human are the same creature, I suppose. But even the carapaces of these two are significantly different.
Even honest creationists admit that new species evolve; it's been directly observed. Most of those with some scientific understanding admit to new genera and families evolving as well. Of course God created living things with the capacity to change over time. By Darwin's time most scientists knew this. Darwin's great discovery was how it works.
It's true that Huxley won a debate with Owen, showing that there was no structure in a chimpanzee that is not also present in humans and vice versa. Humans have slightly different shaped bones in places, but they are the same bones. Likewise, the features on these two different species are the same parts, but differently shaped.
Good point. Horseshoe crabs today show much more genetic variation than exists between humans and chimps.
Degrees of genetically determined protein polymorphism and genic heterozygosity in the horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) were estimated from an analysis of electrophoretically demonstrable variation in 24 proteins (16 enzymes and eight nonenzymatic proteins) controlled by 25 loci in 64 individuals from four localities. Polymorphism in one or more of the populations was demonstrated in nine enzymes controlled by ten loci: MDH-1, MDH-2, α-GPD, IDH-1, IDH-2, D-LDH-1, PGM-1, PGM-2, and an unidentified enzyme. Single populations of Limulus are, on the average, polymorphic at 25.0% of their loci, and individuals are, on the average, heterozygous at 5.7% of their loci. Because Limulus polyphemus, which is a "phylogenetic relic," is not less genetically variable than some other animals belonging to horotelic lines, the hypothesis that members of bradytelic lines have unusually low mutability is clearly refuted by the present analysis. Thus, the impressive stability of external morphological features manifested by the limulines since the Triassic, 200 million years ago, must be explained in terms of temporal uniformity of the organism-environment relationship and/or genetic homeostasis. At seven of the nine polymorphic loci, there are consistent differences in allele frequencies between populations on the Atlantic coast (Woods Hole, Massachusetts, and Chincoteague, Virginia) and those on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico (Panacea and Panama City, Florida). Populations on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico appear to be more polymorphic than those on the Atlantic coast. The overall pattern of genetic variation in Limulus supports the hypothesis that the variation is adaptive, with the polymorphisms being maintained by some form of balancing selection.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2406814?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
This is the great dilemma of creationism. Any measure that would make these horseshoe crabs the same "kind" would also make humans and chimps the same kind. Rock and a hard place.
So once again, the young Earth assumption crashes against the facts.
turnorburn
Member
Its still fraud anyway you slice it, but what i can't figure out is why you won't read your bible, it will tell you all about creation and the earths age.. Maybe its because you prefer those scientific guesses?
No fraud in Gods word Barbarian..
tob
Barbarian
Member
There isn't anything in the Bible about dinosaurs, much less feathered ones. But the National Geographic story illustrates why science is so much better than anything else at learning about the world. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship, not about the classification of living things. As you see, the magazine would have been wise to wait until scientists had finished studying the fossil, before publishing. If they had, they wouldn't have been embarrassed.
The guys who told you about it, didn't tell you about that part, for reasons everyone here can understand.
The guys who told you about it, didn't tell you about that part, for reasons everyone here can understand.