Creationist's Problem: Fossil Layers and Humans

In reply to the first post, I'd like to ask if you are 100 percent sure that the Earth is that old, and if so, how if you were not there? I don't really care if the Earth is billions or just thousands of years old, but I can't see how anyone could say that there is perfect proof that the Earth is indeed that old. Carbon dating is not conclusive enough to prove that without the shadow of a doubt.

The Bible may be actually written down by men, but it is inspired by God. Men did not make this stuff up. All scripture is God breathed. I don't know if you are a Christian or not, but if you are, you better believe that. The only account of Earth's origin from someone who was there when the earth was formed is the Bible. I don't know about you, but I think I trust God more than men. There is nothing you can say that will change my mind on that issue. As for how old the Earth is, the Bible doesn't say how old it is. That is why it is not wrong for a Christian to believe in an old Earth or a Young Earth. I personally think that the Earth is young. But I can't prove that beacuse I wasn't there. Just as you can't prove that the Earth is billions of years old.

Thanks for the book reference! But I would disagree with you on a few things. As for USA killing people, you cannot put someone to death without indisputable evidence, or numerous witnesses, (at least that is the way it's supposed to be). The Earth's age is disputable, otherwise why would there be people who dispute about it? Young Earth creationists do actually have some good evidence. I do not know all of it, but I do know a little if you want to hear it.

sorry bout that. Thanks for enlisting the Genesis topic!

I would do it, but you are debating carbon-14 dating and other like methods at the present. I don't want to switch subjects on you now. But if you really want me to give you my few evidences, post something that would be easy for me to reply to so I don't have to spend a long time catching up on what you are talking about.

Okay, I do have something to say about the geological column. There is no indisputable evidence that the rock layers represent layers of time. Rock layers can also be formed by natural disasters. You also have to admit that the fossil record is severely lacking of any intermediate links. There should be more intermediate links than the inindividual species themselves.

Actually Ned, come to think of it, nevermind. It is already hectic enough without another forum to watch out for. Sorry I can't help you out.

Can you please admit that there are not as many intermediate links as there should be? That would make me feel a whole lot better about debating with you. If you have done the research, you should know that the "intermediate links" that have been found are iffy at best. The link you most likely think is the best between man and ape is, "Australopithecus afarensis." I believe that since pretty much all the evidence points to the guess that it is an ape, that it is an ape and an ape only.p.s. I know about the ankle and hip joints. You don't have to bring that up.

Sorry bout that. I'll try to manage my debates more carefully next time. But I really do have a little of what the young earth creationists say, but I'm not as good as they are at explaining it, and here is not the place.This message has been edited by Proboscis, 05-07-2004 04:28 PM

But there should be more intermediate link fossils than individual species themselves, that you should admit. Darwin even stated that there would have to be a lot more intermediate links than there are now.This message has been edited by Proboscis, 05-07-2004 04:34 PM

After rereading your post, it made me believe that you think I don't actually have evidence. I do and if you REALLY want to here it, I guess i can switch forums.

THIS WILL BE MY LAST ENTRY TODAY SO PLEASE DO NOT REPLY AS IF YOU WERE EXPECTING ME TO CONTINUING DEBATING. Look I'm getting tired of always arguing and never agreeing. Now for what I meant about "iffy". Just about every one of the links that you claim to be indisputable proof, are easily arguable. They are what I said they are, and that is iffy. Have you done the research? I have gone to about fifty evolutionist web sites and have no one has given me a concrete intermediate link. If you would "defile" yourself by going to a creationist webpage with an open mind, then you would see that we are able to disprove just about every "link" they have come up with. If you would check it out, then you would know where I am coming from. I am not angry at all, in fact this is pretty fun! I know that if you read this with an angry spirit, it will probably sound mad, so I wanted to let you know that I am a little offended that you don't even pay any attention to my proofs, but I am not angry. Anyway, the reason there should be way more "intermediate links" is that there should be more transitional fossils than individual species, because to get from one species to another, there are many steps. So there would have to be way more intermediate fossils.Grace, mercy and peace be yours in abundance through Jesus Christ our Lord,Proboscis

Arachnophilia,I just thought I'd mention that just because you have certain "discriminations" against both Christians and homeschooled children, doesn't mean you have to give the impression that they are stupid. At least the homeschooled kids are smart enough to stay away from getting drunk, high and every other stupid thing a LOT of other kids are into.
As for her theory, I don't know exactly how accurate it is, but it was obvious, (to me at least), that she was talking about density, NOT ACTUAL SIZE. You believe that the different layers of Rock Strata represent layers of time. That's what you believe I respect that. I believe that they do not reprsent only layers of time, but that a LOT of it was laid down by the flood in Genesis. Either way, neither of us were there to observe it, so we can't ever know for sure until I can ask God himself.

Arachnophilia,I'm sorry if I offended you in my last post. I didn't mean that. You have to understand, however, that it is thoughts like yours about homeschooled kids that make a HUGE discrimination in the general public thought against homeschooled families.
I homeschool through a certain charter school and I played football for the first time last year. I thought I could go in there, be myself and be accepted, but some of the kids on the team had perdjudices against me and homeschooled kids so they didn't even TRY to get along with me. It didn't have a lot to do with social skills, they just wouldn't even talk to me much. They thought I was stupid when in reality, I probably got a higher score on THEIR standardized testing than most of them did.
Homeschooled kids are NOT dumb, even if their reason to homeschool IS to get away from other religious peer pressure (evolution and humanism.) So try to think a little more carefully before discriminating against homeschooled kids.This message has been edited by Proboscis, 11-11-2004 11:28 AM

Sorry, this isn't gonna be about homeschooling completely, but I have to say one more thing. I have another thing I'm going to say anyway, so the homeschooling thing is just going to be part it.Hey! If you want to discuss the education levels ON the theory of evolution, I have a MUCH better grasp on it than every one of my public schooled friends. Only the homeschooled kids have the time to do the research and MAKE their own choice of what to believe. All of my other friends honestly know just enough to only think I'm dumb because I don't believe in "science" when to be truthful, I'm NOT rejecting what the evidence says, they are. Like I said, I wrote a research paper on this subject so I know a LOT more than they do about evolution, unless they've taken the initiative to study it in their own spare time. The ONLY side presented in the public school systems is the evolutionist side and that's the ONLY reason why they believe it. I've had enough of that. You don't see young evolutionists come in here with any better arguments do you?? Sorry if I sound a little mad, but you offended me. LOL I know enough to keep you busy reading anyway though! If I'm so dumb, then why even bother reading my posts? Lol, I'm just pulling your leg!Okay, sorry about that. I have a question for all of you. What is your "concrete" evidence for evolution anyway? All you guys ever say is, "You're dumb because you're a Creationist." What is so dumb about believing that God created the world, which is too complex to come about by chance anyway? Ok just thought I'd throw that out there!