How do Jehovah's Witnesses Explain This Fossil Record?

by sabastious 143 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  bohm

  Debator:

  "Please stop asking falacial questions. I already said (and it has been admitted on here by others) that the fossil record is only 10% at best of records. No one can prove or disprove anything by it. There are simply not enough fossil Jigsaw pieces available."

  deny deny deny. Using about 20 different dating methods scientists have carefully recorded a wast amount of information about the geological column. Even the WT admit that even though some (or all) the dating methods might be systematically off, they give a relative dating index which is true - ie. if two rocks both date to 150mio years bc, they are about the same date though the actual date might be different from 150mio years bc. This leave an interesting question: When, using scientists dating methods, did the flood occur? Was it 28000 years BC during the past ice age as the "flash-frozen" mammoths would hint to? later? earlier? how much of the column (ie. which layers) was laid down during the flood?

  Your answer is to say the column is not complete hence the largest geological event in the past couple of billions of years should not have left a trace, even though a gazillion lesser floods and events are recorded. Thats just silly.

  Your in deeper water than mt. Arerat has ever been the past 6000 years.
• 

  thetrueone

  The fact remains there is a humongous amount of factual evidence to support evolution that has been gathered to date.

  There is actual evidence within species now living of adaptation within the environment they are trying to survive.

  If this is understood why is it so far stretched that species weren't adapting to their environment millions of years ago ?

  What do creationists have to support themselves on, oh yes hearsay from primitive people who lived thousands of years ago.

  Thats it. Talk

  Creationists somehow forget or put into their argument, the human ignorance factor. ( particularly concerning the ancients )

  To purpose that adaptation is just simple mythology, your being truly disingenuous to the core.

  Creationist think if you find a fossil laying in the ground that you have to have an evolving sub-species right next to it to prove

  evolutionary development, now hows that for rational logic ?
• 

  OUTLAW

  "Sludge to man" in a billion years is not proven.....Debator/Reniaa

  Evolution has been Proven..

  Reniaa Evolved to Debator in a Week..

  

  ........................ ...OUTLAW
• 

  BurnTheShips

  How do Jehovah's Witnesses Explain This Fossil Record?

  
• 

  debator

  Fossil record is extremely incomplete so cannot be called proof.

  DNA are the complex designed building blocks of life. They prove an intelligent designer.

  Adaption within a species cannot solve the massive problem of no species jumping. An animal can adapt to it's environment as much as it likes it still remains of the kind/animal type it is.

  Random chance mutation is crumbling under the weight of the increasing complexity found under a microscope
• 

  OUTLAW

  Random chance mutation is crumbling under the weight of the increasing complexity found under a microscope.....debator/Reniaa

  Evolution is about "Survival of the Fittest"..

  Not random chance..

  Where did you Learn about Evolution?..Maybe a Gas Station?

  Have you ever been Tested to see how Dumb you actually are?..

  

  ................................. ...OUTLAW
• 

  unshackled

  Debator...please consider your source of information. In this thread you've been supplied with irrefutiable facts that stand up to any scrutiny of research you could apply without bias. When other creationists are your only source of information you will not get an unbiased viewpoint.

  From the comments on this thread I'd assume most of us in here have scoured BOTH sides of argument. After all, at one point, it seems the majority in here were once creationists. Having scoured the other sources of information outside of the bible view, the only conclusion to make is that clearly evolution is a fact. I encourage you to do the same.

  If you only went to a Ford dealer to find out about GM vehicles...what do you think the result would be? Ford wants your money, they would not persuade you to buy GM. The "talking snake" religions of today were born out of population control. It has also grown into big, big business. Tax exemption + mass following = money, money, money. They would not persuade you away from their ideology. Surely you can see how one side is clearly interested in controlling you and misinforming you.

  I know when someone believes it comes from a deep-seated need to believe. But good luck to you and I hope you free yourself one day.
• 

  debator

  Hi unshackled

  You are writing cheques this thread can't cash in.

  I think people either believe in God or they don't hense why Atheists are defined by what they don't believe in A-theism.

  I don't think Darwnism or the fossil record has been proved by this debate. It has been admitted the fossil record is extremely incomplete and also that Darwinism is an ever-changing creature happy to throw in the bin out-dated past proofs for a new set of possibilities. Embryonic fin was a good example of this.

  If you look into supporters of "Evolution" itself you can usually pin them down to admitting adaption within species is their "proof" and not much else usually Darwinists tend to fall into the trap of thinking disproving the Bible means proving their position which is simply not the case. The Bible doesn't make claims to be a scientific Manual. Our belief in God is from more reasons than just looking at processes in nature.
• 

  bohm

  Debator - Okey let me ask a more specific question. The K-T boundary is found in many, many placed and share the same signature. Did the flood happend before or after the K-T boundary was laid down?
• 

  bohm

  Isaac: Ofcourse the good debator wont answer the question, he/she has made up a perfectly good excuse to deny all evidence, "the column is not complete". Well no shit sherlock. Neither is our knowledge of the roman empire, or our knowledge of the solar system (or universe) or any number of things.

  But debator miss a fundamental point. If a huge event, such as a global flood just 4000 years ago, does not have to leave any evidence in the geological column, one is left wondering why debator expect the column to be of any use at all, ie. why he/she a moment later lament that no transitional fossils has been found in the column (nevermind this is trivially wrong, but evolution is not the point of this debate). Why can it be that debator expect that the column in one moment is so complete, ordered and well-studied that animals hundreds of millions of years old should be preserved and found today, when he a moment later claim the column is so lacking, so little studied and so fragmented that even a global flood just 4000 years ago which killed allmost all life on earth and must have flushed allmost all topsoil into the sea does not have to leave the slightest trace; one can indeed not even say when it was supposed to occur according to the ordinary dating methods.

  It should be obvious to everyone that Debator is using two standards of evidence. He is even using two standards when it come to the impact of the above testemony: In the case of evolution, lack of transitional fossils (never mind plenty have been found - even debator must admit that a huge amount of "variation within a kind" has taken place that look exactly like evolution) is held as evidence something is wrong with evolution. In the case of the flood, lack of even the slightest geological evidence is not a problem at all because, hey, its just not a problem because this is an idea Debator like (jedi hand wave).