Is the biblical account of creation compatible with evolution?

Akoue · Jan 15, 2009, 05:55 PM

Wow, Tom, you seem to feel really victimized a lot of the time. Your question to asking concerned disorder in the layers of the fossil record. He answered this when he posted regarding the sorting out of the layers and the appeal to radiometric dating. If I remember it, why don't you?

Now kindly comport yourself in a civil manner.

ordinaryguy · Jan 15, 2009, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Or is trying to have a real dialogue on the topic simply a waste of time?

I've found it to be both educational and entertaining, so it certainly hasn't been a waste of my time. If you feel that it's a waste of yours, all you have to do is stop posting.

Tj3 · Jan 15, 2009, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

Wow, Tom, you seem to feel really victimized a lot of the time. Your question to asking concerned disorder in the layers of the fossil record. He answered this when he posted regarding the sorting out of the layers and the appeal to radiometric dating. If I remember it, why don't you?

Read the question again. You appear to have missed it. It did NOT concern disordered layers. I was more specific and identified specifically that I was looking for an answer about the trees in Joggins. Read more carefully.

Now kindly comport yourself in a civil manner.

Tj3 · Jan 15, 2009, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

I've found it to be both educational and entertaining, so it certainly hasn't been a waste of my time. If you feel that it's a waste of yours, all you have to do is stop posting.

I have found many parts of it to be also and I enjoy discussing this topic. But if we are going to get into a round of behaviour like we are seeing now, I am beginning to question whether the thread has indeed come to the appropriate time to die.

asking · Jan 15, 2009, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Now, please explain to me why I should think that this is anything but deliberate mis-representation?

Because I have a pattern of not doing that.

Deep slow breaths.

arcura · Jan 15, 2009, 08:47 PM

Nike 1,
Sorry, but I must disagree with you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

arcura · Jan 15, 2009, 08:50 PM

Asking,
I must agree with you on that.
I saw no purposeful mis-representation of anything you said regarding Tj3.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue · Jan 15, 2009, 08:55 PM

Tom,

This is the question you keep asking, that you say asking has not addressed:

Quote:

The layers are often turned upside down to what you describe, and often animals that should be ancient, according to evolution, are mixed in with animals that should be recent according to evolution. I have seen for myself trees in Joggins, NS (a world heritage site) where trees are fossilized and, single trees can be seen growing up through what would be, accordingly to evolutionists, millions or perhaps even hundreds of millions of years.
-----------------------------

What does this fossil record tell us?

At #286 asking wrote:

Quote:

Yup. The layers are often turned upside down, tangled up, or on their sides. You name it. I learned that in Geology 10. But figuring out the order in which they were originally formed is not that hard, I learned in geology 10. It's mainly a mapping problem. And if you get really confused, there's always radiometric dating.

I have no way of knowing what you saw at Joggins, NS (or where that is). But it's totally possible for a fossilized tree to be unburied and reburied under different sediments. Sure. It could happen. It doesn't disprove anything.

Your turn. If the fossil record is not a picture book record of macroevolution, what is it? Why is it there? Why would God create such a complex puzzle for us to work out? Tens of thousands of dedicated humans work for as many lifetimes to get the answer and you say they are all wrong? So what's the right answer?

EDIT: I just googled Joggins. Very cool!

And again at #297 he writes:

Quote:

It's like opening up a jigsaw puzzle. It's a mess, but once you get it sorted out, the pattern is clear. The pieces fit together AND the picture reinforces that you've got it right. The fossil record is the same. Once you sort out where all the layers are supposed to be, the overall pattern is clear. And in many parts of the world, like the Grand Canyon, you have a continuous record over millions of years with no disentangling necessary.

It looks to me like he has addressed your question. Now please stop posturing and respond to the questions that have been put to you.

Tj3 · Jan 15, 2009, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

Because I have a pattern of not doing that.

Deep slow breaths.

I have had to point out may times where you mis-represented what I said. But I am always willing to give anyone a second chance, but as I said, I want to know that there is an interest in a serious respectful discussion and that in the future, you will quote me in context rather than simply make claims of what you (often wrong) think that I said.

I said this in my last message, and I note that you have neither expressed regret for having mis-represented me so many times, nor have you indicated that you are prepared to move forward in a new, more respectful approach to the discussion.

I was, for a while enjoying the discussion and I certainly enjoy the topic, but when there are constant mis-representations and things start going personal, the discussion is no longer carrying that same interest, nor is it providing the value that it did previously. The value comes from value added input on the topic, and that stopped a few pages back.

So, like I said, I do not hold grudges and am more that willing to move forward - I am just asking you to agree to a different approach that is more respectful.

Deal?

Tj3 · Jan 15, 2009, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akoue

Tom,

This is the question you keep asking, that you say asking has not addressed:

I know that you would never accept as vague an answer as this from me:

"I have no way of knowing what you saw at Joggins, NS (or where that is). But it's totally possible for a fossilized tree to be unburied and reburied under different sediments. Sure. It could happen. It doesn't disprove anything."

Of course you did not post what I said in response to this, pointing out that the tree is inside rock.

I trust that in the future if I ever choose to give a vague answer like that I will hear no more about it from you.

Now, I am interested in a discussion on the topic, if anyone still wishes to actually get back on the topic. If not, it might be best for the mods to simply shutdown the thread since it otherwise appears to have come to the end of its useful life.

Is the biblical account of creation compatible with evolution?

Check out some similar questions!