Wretched: Those wacky "reliable" fossil records.

[attitudinous]

Jesus Christ.... irony intended.

[jbulletc]

circular argument starts at 1:05

[normalhomeschooler]

@jbulletc circular in what way? I'm curious.

[jbulletc]

@normalhomeschooler claiming the bible is correct by appealing back to the bible is, by definition, circular reasoning.

[normalhomeschooler]

@jbulletc I believe they are more appealing to the fact that the bible is a reliable historical source in other areas to back the accuracy of the biblical worldview rather than using the bible to prove that the bible is true.

[jbulletc]

@normalhomeschooler well thats actually quite sensible if they were to actually prove that the Bible is historically reliable or that it should be used as a scientific blueprint. Unfortunately, there's only mountains of evidence suggesting the contrary. sorta like the noahs arks example. Its scientifically inconsistent and conflicts with our timeline of the ancient world.

[WhatTheHeckAnimation]

well then how come we have dinosaurs from millions of year before man?

[chernickguitar]

@WhatTheHeckAnimation If millions of years is the answer, then why are there the consistencies I just stated. Also, why are red blood cells being found in dinosaur bones today when it clearly contradicts the time the accepted evolution fossilization records must follow to be correct. Couldn't it be possible the MAN made a MISTAKE? Or that man is trying to deceive to lead people away from God so that people will believe their answer for life instead?

[WhatTheHeckAnimation]

Sooooo...you never graduated 5th grade, huh?

[shueyk2320]

ughh bullshit?

[scrap222666]

So god is all powerful but he can't simple re-create the universe or at least the animals? Then he is not all powerful. Why use a flood?

[Zinferbuddy]

@scrap222666 He can re-create it, but He is also orderly and just. His all-powerfulness coincides with his other attributes such as love, mercy, and wrath. That's why sin is still around and the world isn't perfect. and He's not a genie who just makes life perfect for His people (hence the horrible lives of the people who wrote the Bible)

[WhatTheHeckAnimation]

@scrap222666 clever :)

[FiverBeyond]

This video is an excellent demonstration of how "Creation Science" approaches evidence: it begins with a 'worldview' and a pre-determined conclusion, and then seeks to "interpret" the evidence to align with this.

Real science doesn't work like this. Real science attempts to DO AWAY with pre-supposed 'worldviews', to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, and to analyze evidence objectively, such that the evidence DOES speak for itself, and is not entirely subject to personal interpretation.

[PoBoyX]

Truth isn't determined by how many secular scientists believe something or not. Secular scientists have believed many things over the years that have turned out to be wrong. Truth is truth even if not a single person on the planet believes it. Secular scientists have their biases and blinders just like everyone else.

[FiverBeyond]

This is the second most disingenuous claim that I hear from Creationists: that both Creationists and scientists are looking at the 'same evidence.'

Here is the evidence that Creationists do NOT accept:

1. Fossil location correlates to the diverging branches of the categorized tree of life, and do NOT correlate to any world-wide-flood method of sorting.

2. Stratigraphy correlates simultaneously to fossil patterns AND radiometric dating.

3. There are a multitude of clearly transitional fossils.

[Vebrotube]

Anyone who believes in the "facts" of evolution is in denial, plain and simple.

[AmericanConcrete]

Science is not a hermeneutic with which to interpret the Bible. -Dr., John MacArthur

[TheEntertainer29]

Well, serjah, remember, we all deserve hell. Its only through God's grace we are saved. Well all deserve hell

[SerJahPhoto]

The problem will be that if you meet the One who by His words created the universe, you won't be able to even make a mere sound.

PS: People who reject the greatest sacrifice of God deserve nothing less than the eternal damnation in hell. No apology for that.

[NoaahsArk]

I love how all the atheists come on to these videos and argue. Gosh if I were an atheist and did not believe in God, and realize I only have 70 some years to live, I sure would not be wasting my life arguing with people on YOUTUBE! LOL. Wow, what a waste of time if you don't believe in an afterlife. Go do something fun with your life! NOW! GO! GO! GO!

[biscuithammer00]

@NoaahsArk

I suppose the only answer to that is that as an atheist you would most likely value truth and would hate to see someone with such an idiotically smug attitude try and besmirch science.

[SerJahPhoto]

People who stick with the E-n theory are sinners who reason that if they can intellectually prove that there is no God, then on the Judgement day they will be able to defend themselves.

Here's the scenario.

Go to hell, sinner!

Objection, your Honor! You didn't prove me of your existence...

[dustydirt]

yeah, its funny how it somehow became an apple.

awesome video btw.

God bless

[sprinkleddought]

That's awesome!!:)

[kdtdragon]

Straight and to the point. I love it.

[Ondrix]

WOW..... there are so many things wrong with this. But let me point this out. Before you go basing your world view on what the bible (or any other religious text) says you need to do 3 things.

1) Prove that a god exists.

2) Prove that said god is the god that you believe in.

3) Prove that the religious book you follow was actually written/inspired by said god and not written by man and simply attributed to that god (the bible simply stating it came from god is not evidence that it did).

[dustydirt]

@ 1:47

ha, its was a pear & not an apple...

while i'll be a monkey's uncle.

[threehappypenguins]

@dustydirt The bible says "fruit." So why not put a picture of a pear? I'm so sick of the apple thing because we don't even know. Maybe it was a dragon fruit? LOL

[jwissick]

The bible can't account for marine fossils on the mountains. Shells and things SINK and would have remained at the bottom and not "climb" up to the tops of mountains. Those fossils are on the mountains as a result of GEOLOGIC uplift. We observe the same thing in the same places today!

Not to mention there is ZERO evidence that supports your mythical plagiarized global flood.

Just more AiG nonsense and bunk.

[jwissick]

We don't even need the fossil record to prove evolution. DNA confirms common ancestry. The fossil record is just the icing on the cake. The fossil record DOES speak for itself. You just fail to put all the pieces together.

You don't have the words of anyone who was there for creation. You have a book that CLAIMS to be the word of someone who was there, but that record is in COMPLETE conflict with reality.

[ddrninjette]

Ahh, so according to this video, creationists rely on confirmation bias. ;) And no, using well-established scientific theories such as general relative or evolution to interpret, explain, and verify the data is not confirmation bias.

The video doesn't mention continental drift or the fact that we always find "more evolved" fossils above "less evolved" ones." You will never find a fossilized bunny in the lower strata of rock.

[ddrninjette]

@ddrninjette Just to elaborate, continental drift is why we often fine marine fossils on the top layers of rock. The "creationist model" can't explain the fact that there will be a layer of marine fossils only. Then maybe a layer or two below of just plants and animals. Then there would be another layer below that only of marine fossils again. Continental drift does explain that and makes useful predictions about what will be found in each rock layer.

[PoBoyX]

@ddrninjette, if you look at the layers, you find that the life forms are arranged in very much the same order as we find them today. You won't find a bunny in the lower strata because bunny's don't live at the bottom of the ocean. For the most part, the fossil record is simply a snapshot of life at the time of the flood which (with the exception of extinct species) corresponds very closely to how a snapshot taken today would look.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX But you WOULD find bunnies at the bottom strata if it was caused by a flood. It doesn't matter where things live, but where the corpse sinks to after it dies. A flood would have produced a jumble of corpses in that one layer... But we don't see anything remotely like that.

The flood is a plagiarism. It is almost an exact match for the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates the story of noah by more than 300 years.

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, I can see how you would think that if we didn't have the results of other floods to observe. A flood actually doesn't produce a jumbled mess as you say. When we look at the horrendously turbulent flood torrent at Mt. St. Helens for example we see that it produced nice even finely graded layers including one 25ft deep section comprised of extremely thin layers.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX Actually it does. Helens was not a flood. 

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, ok so it was a massive mud slide that took with it the waters of Spirit Lake creating a catastrophic turbulent deluge that leveled everything in it's path, layed down 600 feet of strata and created a huge canyon within the span of a few days but it wasn't a flood. I stand corrected. "Flood" or not it certainly demonstrated that extremely violent waters can and do form neatly ordered strata layers and that they can and do form quickly.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX There are huge problems with a globe flood. If there was a global flood, then there would be NO plant life on the earth. The salinity changes would have killed all plants, seeds, fish, algae, etc. (osmosis).

There would also be a miss-mash of dead organisms in those layers. There would be bunnies with chickens and dinosaurs and trilobites. This is NEVER found.

Simply put, there is NO way to claim there was a global flood. The ONLY people who claim there was global flood are religious.

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick,how is it that you know the environmental impact for a catastrophic event you claim has never happened yet even today scientists spend millions studying the environmental impact of catastrophic events they can see happening before their eyes? You're also wrong about who claims a global flood. Secular scientists believe Mars was the sight of a global flood even though there is no water at all on the planet. That kind of flood doesn't require them to submit to the bible.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX Then find me one secular scientist that claims there was a global flood on earth.

You won't find any. And Mars isn't earth by a long shot. There would be no where for the water to go.

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, as for Gilgamesh, in order to prove your claim, you'd need to prove that the it actually predates the biblical story of the flood, not just that it claims to predate it (the biblical account doesn't claim any date by the way). And in order to do that, you'd need to not simply show that the flood story in Gilgamesh was written before the biblical account but that it actually originated (eg, going back to handed down oral tradition) before the biblical account. Can you do that?

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX It's been done. 

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, nope. It hasn't.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX Yes, history has demonstrated conclusively that Gilgamesh predates Noah by several hundred years.

Deal with it.

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, you didn't read my previous post. Gilgamesh predating Noah doesn't prove your claim. It is entirely possible that both stories are derived from commonly known history and that the Gilgamesh account was perverted and mythologized over time while the acccount Noah relates remained pure. If the event actually happened, we would expect it to have been preserved in various cultures as they spread around the world afterwards and that is exactly what we see.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX Impossible as NEITHER happened. There is NO geological evidence to back it up. NONE. It's a moot point.

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, Your claim was that the biblical record is borrowed from Gilgamesh. Just because one account predates another, does not prove the latter borrowed from the former. That is a leap in logic that has no evidence to support it. Even if I give you that the event never happened (which I do not believe), it is still a leap in logic with no evidence. Your point is not made. If you want to discuss geology, that's another issue but if you want to discuss Gilgamesh, your claim has failed.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX No, My claim was that the flood never happened. Read the beginning of the thread.

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, in the larger context that was your claim but in the smaller context you were making the unverifiable claim of textual source for the biblical record and stating it as hard fact. It is not and neither you nor anyone else has proven otherwise.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX It's not a leap in logic to sat there is no evidence to support a global flood. It's acknowledgement of reality. . Davis Young, an Evangelical and geologist in "Christianity and the Age of the Earth", wrote "The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful." "It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful."

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, again, you're not reading my post. I said it was a leap in logic to say that because Gilgamesh predates Noah, that this is definitive proof that the biblical account is derived from Gilgamesh. THAT is the leap in the logic that has no evidence to support it. We haven't even discussed geology yet. As for Davis Young, I couldn't disagree more. The fossil record itself is exactly what a catastrophist would expect to find and definitely NOT what a gradualist would expect to find.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX Then you haven't studied the fossil record.

Global Flood is indefensible. Even attempting to defend it makes you look like a reality denier or delusional. You won't find a single secular geologist that supports a global flood. NONE. All "scientists" who support global floods are christian creationists trying to sell you something.

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, I know of secular (even atheistic) scientists who have come to believe in the flood. The problem is that you can't believe in the biblical flood and remain secular which is why secular science denies it. The evidence is so plain it's unmistakeable. Fossilization and strata formation are not an ongoing gradual process. It takes a catastrophe in order for it to happen. The fact that we even have massive rock strata across the planet points to global catastrophe.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX Name a few..

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, Why? so you can go and discredit them as whacko religious nuts in yet another argument from authority? I don't really care if you slam and bash anyone because it doesn't change what they were before they came to believe in Creation. One off the top of my head is the AIG author Gary Parker. He has his doctorate in biology with a cognate in geology and used to be atheistic teacher who taught evolution with gusto and conviction. Now he writes for AIG.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX So, in other words, you can't name any secular / atheist geologists that support a noah global flood.

Why not just say so?

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, go back a few posts and you'll see that I said a secularist cannot admit to a biblical flood and remain secular. It would be like asking for a theist who doesn't believe in God. At any rate, is that all you can come up with? Your arguments so far have amounted to no more than sweeping statements, insults and arguments from authority. Is that really your plan of attack here? You are proving the point I made on that other video. All most atheists can do is insult.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX " I know of secular (even atheistic) scientists who have come to believe in the flood. " Impossible. There are NO atheist geologists that would every say the entire earth was covered in water 6k years ago. It's insanity.

"The problem is that you can't believe in the biblical flood and remain secular which is why secular science denies it."

Absurd. Science denies it because the evidence doesn't support it! You are denying the antecedent.

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, Gary Parker was a proud atheist, scientist, and even instructor of evolution who took great pride in mocking and tearing down the creationist beliefs of his students. He is now a young earth creationist who writes for AIG. However "impossible" or "absurd" you think it is, Gary Parker is not alone. You are still missing the point. All this amounts to is an argument from authority. I could care less how many scientists, secular or not, believe what. Is that all you have?

[JMcH]

@jwissick - Scientists supporting the idea of the earth covered in water: earthdive(.)com/site/news/news­detail.asp?changedate=true&cha­ngeyear=2009&id=2821

[JMcH]

@jwissick - Their interpretation is that this happened billions of years ago, but there's nothing that says that their interpretation is correct.

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, you also assume that Moses is the originator of the flood story and not simply the one whose written record of a much more ancient story survived. How do you know the biblical flood is not the real event which the Epic of Gilgamesh was taken from? The biblical record for example is written in a much more historical fashion while the Epic of Gilgamesh has all the hallmarks of being a mytholigized retelling, not the other way around which is backwards if the biblical version is a copy.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX Because neither happened. That is a geologic, DNA, physics scientific FACT.

[123MrBurg]

@jwissick Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! That is funny. You make that up yourself?

[jwissick]

@123MrBurg There would be HUGE bottlenecks in the DNA of all animals because of having to reproduce with such a limited gene pool. The geologic record doesn't support a global flood in ANY way. The physics of a global flood are just impossible for countless reasons.

That ANY life exists on earth is PROOF there was no global flood.

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, speaking of HUGE bottlenecks, how did the very first organisms get past that same problem you mention above? Also, how has every subsequent branch in the evolutionary ladder overcome that same problem? If evolution is true, ALL live started out as an extremely small population and somehow overcame the very problem you just leveled at creation. This is a problem we can see happening today and shows how mutations argue against evolution, not for it. Your own words confirm the problem.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX It simply is not a problem on the asexual level. Asexual reproduction increases a population quickly and the larger the population, the more diversity.

Bottlenecking is a far far worse problem to sexual reproduction where diversity is required to maintain a healthy population.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX And I am not assuming Moses was the author of the story. There is no evidence this Moses ever existed.

Neither were real events.

[JMcH]

@jwissick -There's no evidence abiogenesis happened, so I guess we're not really here.

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, then what's your chronology based on that allows you to definitvely say which story came first and which is a copy of the other?

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX The Noachian flood supposedly happened circa 2350 BCE; the Gilgamesh deluge claims to have happened circa 5600 BCE, over three millennia earlier. The Hebrew version is a monotheistic re-writing of the original Babylonian polytheistic text.

There are NO copies of the Noachian story that even come close to predating the Epic. 

[PoBoyX]

@jwissick, unfortunately I won't be able to continue this discussion (at least not until next week) as I'm leaving early tomorrow morning to go camping for a few days and will be away from civilized things such as computers and internet.

[jwissick]

@PoBoyX Have fun! Be safe!

[ddrninjette]

@ddrninjette Just to make a quick point, when I said, "You will never find a fossilized bunny in the lower strata of rock," I made a prediction based on the theory of evolution and theories on rock formation. This is why evolution is science. It makes accurate, testable predictions making it useful to scientists. Creationism doesn't make predictions. All selective "evidence" is post hoc. Therefore creationism fails to even meet the standards to be called a hypothesis.

[droptozro]

@ddrninjette

"more evolved" over "less evolved" is your confirmation bias(in your bunny example)---the ideal that anything is "more/less" evolved than anything else is pure speculation and man's imagination--it's never been observed, thus we're back at square one, our presuppositions.

[ccsniper]

I have to ask, and this is just a question. Where does it say in the bible that the earth is six thousand years old? I ask this because I really can't see any reason for focusing on something the bible only gives a couple of pages too (creation).

[123MrBurg]

@ccsniper The Jews are meticulous records keepers. Some folks with a lot of time on their hands studied the genealogy that is recorded in the OT and counted backwards. There are fixed and reliable dates there, it was just a matter of plotting it all out. The actual number is not known, I have heard 6000 to 6800 years old.

[jwissick]

@123MrBurg No, they were not. That's why there almost no records of the names of MOST of the characters in the bible outside of the religious texts. Only in ONE place outside the bible will you find the name "king" David... and that's on a rock that mentions the "tribe of david".

You would expect to see much much more if they were meticulous record keepers..... But it simple isn't there.

[123MrBurg]

@jwissick Um... "outside religious text"... Pay attention, your presuppositions are showing. The question was "where in the Bible..." and I answered truthfully. I admit that the 'begats' in the OT are somewhat tedious, and all the counting of the tribes and such, but it is all there. Especially in Genesis, where you cad read the lineage all the way back to the Garden.

[123MrBurg]

@123MrBurg > *can.... typo

[jwissick]

@123MrBurg The bible isn't evidence. It's the CLAIM.

Sorry.

[Shoots1978]

@ccsniper You add up all the years of each generation of people on the earth, or something like that.

[jwissick]

@ccsniper It MUST be 6000 years old or the genesis account which is supposed to be historical can't be true... If it's not true and evolution is reality (and it is), then there was no adam or eve and original sin is out the window and the whole reason for jesus is out the window too.

[ccsniper]

@jwissick You really are nothing more than an annoying human being. Since you gave up belief in the Bible all you seem to do is harass people about something to just be a nuisance. You sir are an apostate. If you did once believe the Bible, then you know what it says about those who once understood it only to reject it, that it is impossible to bring them back to repentance. Just quit posting as you will not convince us who truly believe in Christ that you are right.

[jwissick]

@ccsniper

Who said I was here to convince you moronic fundies? I am here to prevent fence sitters from falling for the lies in your religion and deadening their brains like you obviously have.

[ccsniper]

@jwissick Name 10 modern scientist who have made MAJOR discoveries in the scientific world that are more than simple THEORIES that were done by atheist'. I can name MANY scientist who have IQ's ten times greater than yours who came to the conclusion that not only is there a God, but Jesus Christ is that God. Johannes Keplar, Blaise Pascal, Francis Collins, Galileo, Isaac Newton, William Of Ockham, Francis Bacon. Are you smarter than these men? If so prove it.

[jwissick]

@ccsniper Theories are as good as anything gets in science.

That they believed in a god is not relevant. Not to mention they don't have the same information we have now.

[ccsniper]

@jwissick Like? 

[ccsniper]

@jwissick so you have to believe them for their word? Kind of like faith? Hmmmm..... So you can't verify what they say without a measure of faith. Interesting because I remember one of your comments stating that faith and trust are mutually exclusive yet you have to trust that the scientist aren't simply lying to you, or that they are coming to correct assuptions based on their scientific study.

[jwissick]

@ccsniper

No, I can verify them to the best of my ability. They are not going to assumptions, but to knowledge. Totally different.

[ccsniper]

Christian presuppositions gave birth to modern science; the belief that God's laws operate according to fixed rules. The belief that the laws of nature are 'almost' absolute. Other cultures believed the god's were capricious, and that nature was unpredictable. Hence, the birth of methodological science occurring in Christian Europe.

[jwissick]

@ccsniper ROFL!!!!

No, Christianity gave us the exact opposite. It drove science out and the world into the dark ages!

And since you are likely getting Pascal's "IQ" from dubious IQ testing sites (as IQ tests didn't exist in his day), it doesn't speak well to YOUR intelligence.

[ccsniper]

@jwissick Blaming the dark ages on Christianity? Genius. The fall of Europe into the Dark Ages was a result of the disintegration of the centralized government of the Roman Empire; which in turn was a result of plagues, inflation, internal strife, and the incursions by Pagan Barbarians on the Empires frontiers. The Catholic church was the ONLY thing that kept learning alive in the West; and the church was the only thing that brought us out of the dark ages.

[ccsniper]

@jwissick "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, they expected law in nature because they believed in a Legislature" - C.S Lewis: Medievalist.

And yes, I am well aware that IQ test were not in existence during Pascal's times. The "guesses" of Pascal's likely IQ are based on his many accomplishments. Invented the first mechanical calculator, the syringe, anticipated philosophies that would come hundreds of years after his death, and discovered many new areas of math.

[ccsniper]

@jwissick Pascal was an amazing theologian, philosopher, inventor, mathematician, physicist, apologist, prose author, and on.. If you devoted 5 minutes to the study of his achievements that he accomplished in his painfully short life of 39 years, you would see his obviously apparent genius. At 16 he discovered a new area of mathematical research, at 19 he did it AGAIN. He proposed the first public transportation system, he proved the existence of the vacuum, pioneered works in hydraulics, etc.

[ccsniper]

@jwissick "Not to mention they don't have the same information we have now."

You never gave examples. If you're going to reference evolution, then it would be noteworthy that the idea of evolution has been known for thousands of years (proposed by a Greek philosopher). Even the Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas offered a proposal that the variation of animal species is a result of mutations in sperm. Both Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne are distinguished Christian modern scientist.