How old is our creation really?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Skovand

Active member
Aug 17, 2020
359
54
28
Southeastern USA
I understand what you're saying, I'm saying there is one same race and I quoted those pictures to say I could find a bus load of people in the closest city that look as much ''Neanderthal'' as it gets .. There are no Neanderthals, they are either man or ape and an ape is a separate creation from man .. I am not an ape or evolved from apes , read Genesis 1 and believe it if you want a clue .. And science confirms it too ...
Here is the issue. Those pictures prove absolutely nothing. What does prove something is the morphological record showing distinct differences between them, just like sharks and dolphins are similar but very different at the same time. Then we can move to where the most noticeable differences occur. The genetic record of them. We can tell that neanderthals and sapiens we’re both humans, but different species of human. All the evidence is there. Y’all just simply keep ignoring actual science and ignoring actual facts. Such as it’s a fact humans are not found in the same geological layers as T. rex but we find similar sizes and weights in the same record as them. So humans , not a single human, was alive during the Cretaceous. We also only find tools in the same geological periods as later humans. Not the earliest bipedal primates.
 

Lookupnotback

Active member
Sep 26, 2020
169
47
28
The issue though is that in each geological layer we see different sizes and masses. It’s not just large creatures at the top or bottom, but small ones and large ones ranging from flora and fauna.

It’s also the issue that sediments are not based on weight either. We find different layers with different chemical compositions.

We also find fossils in a wide range of environments. We find fossils that were created by flooding. We find fossils created by volcanic ash. We find fossils of animals they feel through ice and froze. We find fossils underwater from where something like a storm stirring up sediments. We find fossils from animals trapped in saps and amber. We find fossils of animals that feel into tar pits. We find fossils of animals covered by mudslides.

The other issue is the morphology of fossils. When we go to the earliest fossils we only microorganisms we then only find plants. We then find insects. We also find these things throughout every layer but in the earliest layers it’s less diverse. But we do still often find giant extinct club mosses, ferns and so on.

We can trace the primate family. We can go back to where all primates we’re walking on all fours. We can then find the start of fossils with differently shaped knees and ankles and rib cages. We can then start to find bipedal ones that become humans over millions from years. We then begin to find ages where tools and burials start. We don’t find mammals on geological time era where there are just amphibians. We don’t ever find T. rex fossilized next to humans. We never find evidence of fossilized tool markings on T. rex and so on. But we find different smaller and larger mammals and plants there.

The fossil record and geological eras are not depressed by species size and mass but morphology.
Ok, I’ll dig into this...in a bit but to start? Why is it we are told the record shows continual increase in complexity of organisms from the simplest single celled one’s upward? That’s the book’s diagrams always pushed upon us.
Then the different types of catastrophes you speak of? We went from one single large land mass to what we have today, you don’t think to get there along with what the bible tells us happened? That you would not have all the types your claiming are in the record and then we see Mt Saint Hellen’s aftermath the rocks that are claimed to be so old in how many years now?-)
 
May 22, 2020
2,382
358
83
I wonder why Adam and Eve, is they were immortals, needed a tree of life in the garden. If they were immortal they would not need to eat from it.......
Don't you think...because God wanted it there for His plan use.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,777
13,412
113
Here is the issue. Those pictures prove absolutely nothing. What does prove something is the morphological record showing distinct differences between them, just like sharks and dolphins are similar but very different at the same time. Then we can move to where the most noticeable differences occur. The genetic record of them. We can tell that neanderthals and sapiens we’re both humans, but different species of human. All the evidence is there. Y’all just simply keep ignoring actual science and ignoring actual facts. Such as it’s a fact humans are not found in the same geological layers as T. rex but we find similar sizes and weights in the same record as them. So humans , not a single human, was alive during the Cretaceous. We also only find tools in the same geological periods as later humans. Not the earliest bipedal primates.
Fallacy: non sequitur.

The absence of hominid fossils found with T. rex fossils does not in any way prove that humans were not alive during the Cretaceous period.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
why is it they refuse to even discuss that the fossil record is that of a cataclysmic event where the most fragile forms are taken out 1st and then upwards towards heavier boned and sinking creatures, to those that bloat and fall into the silt as it is continually settling and then the ones on mass placed here and there around the world by just the shear force of the waters and mud flows. Toss in the fact that nature feeds on carcasses and so fossils are not formed in the 1st place if not buried by cataclysm? Blind faith they have or minds turned off and just accepting others ideals out of laziness?
Man dosent want to deal with a Creation 10,000 years old, they want a God Millions and Millions of years ago.

To think of 10,000 years ago puts God in the not so distant past?
 
F

Fundamental

Guest
We are not looking for current life as much as looking for fossilized life on Mars. We also have a pretty good understanding of many of the fauna extinctions. The problem arises because of debates on which one of the several things caused one another. Was the asian volcanoes exploding ash throughout the world the cause of it or was it how a large rock from space smashed into earth at this time and ect...
Just saying Mars is pretty boring compared to other stuff in our own solar system. Mars can never maintain liquid water on its surface. But we know there was lots of water on Venus once. Its water created a greenhouse effect when vaporzing into the atmosphere. This greenhouse effect we don’t see on Mars.

I’d rather see something land and drill on a moon like Europe, having liquid water.
Not so excited about Mars anymore.
 

Lookupnotback

Active member
Sep 26, 2020
169
47
28
Don't you think...because God wanted it there for His plan use.
Oh yes, this is all about the developing, drawing out, maturing of the bride of Christ and how That all relates to the faith aspect in all things.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
Just saying Mars is pretty boring compared to other stuff in our own solar system. Mars can never maintain liquid water on its surface. But we know there was lots of water on Venus once. Its water created a greenhouse effect when vaporzing into the atmosphere. This greenhouse effect we don’t see on Mars.

I’d rather see something land and drill on a moon like Europe, having liquid water.
Not so excited about Mars anymore.
How do you know Mars is boring, you been there?

Could it be those computer generated images and stories (They Been Telling You)?
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
I understand what you're saying, I'm saying there is one same race and I quoted those pictures to say I could find a bus load of people in the closest city that look as much ''Neanderthal'' as it gets .. There are no Neanderthals, they are either man or ape and an ape is a separate creation from man .. I am not an ape or evolved from apes , read Genesis 1 and believe it if you want a clue .. And science confirms it too ...
Piltdown Man in 1912 was a fabricated hoax, projecting the missing link between ape and man, and they kept it silent for 41 years, until it was in every public school text book and museum around the world.

The lie continues, the names have been changed to protect the guilty.
 
F

Fundamental

Guest
The issue though is that in each geological layer we see different sizes and masses. It’s not just large creatures at the top or bottom, but small ones and large ones ranging from flora and fauna.

It’s also the issue that sediments are not based on weight either. We find different layers with different chemical compositions.

We also find fossils in a wide range of environments. We find fossils that were created by flooding. We find fossils created by volcanic ash. We find fossils of animals they feel through ice and froze. We find fossils underwater from where something like a storm stirring up sediments. We find fossils from animals trapped in saps and amber. We find fossils of animals that feel into tar pits. We find fossils of animals covered by mudslides.

The other issue is the morphology of fossils. When we go to the earliest fossils we only microorganisms we then only find plants. We then find insects. We also find these things throughout every layer but in the earliest layers it’s less diverse. But we do still often find giant extinct club mosses, ferns and so on.

We can trace the primate family. We can go back to where all primates we’re walking on all fours. We can then find the start of fossils with differently shaped knees and ankles and rib cages. We can then start to find bipedal ones that become humans over millions from years. We then begin to find ages where tools and burials start. We don’t find mammals on geological time era where there are just amphibians. We don’t ever find T. rex fossilized next to humans. We never find evidence of fossilized tool markings on T. rex and so on. But we find different smaller and larger mammals and plants there.

The fossil record and geological eras are not depressed by species size and mass but morphology.
No we can not. All genetic material being able to research that is wasted in those fossils.
You can dig up species and want them to be related, but you will never be able to do genetic research to give ultimate conclusion.

How would you know the homo erectus is an ancestor of you and not just some species gone extinct? Homo Sapiens survived easy because they wore clothes and knew how to make fire.
 
F

Fundamental

Guest
How do you know Mars is boring, you been there?

Could it be those computer generated images and stories (They Been Telling You)?
It’s a huge dessert with sand and rocks. Would it not be much more excited to drill in ice layers on another world?
 

Lookupnotback

Active member
Sep 26, 2020
169
47
28
Man dosent want to deal with a Creation 10,000 years old, they want a God Millions and Millions of years ago.

To think of 10,000 years ago puts God in the not so distant past?
....yes, the all powerful God of creation, who is intimately involved with all aspects of it and so to that end? As part of that creation? Mankind must fall on their faces in humble and shaking adoration. The false pride of man that lead him to the fall, just can’t stand that kind of “ideal” around the reality of our being clay upon the Potter’s wheel!-)
 

Skovand

Active member
Aug 17, 2020
359
54
28
Southeastern USA
Ok, I’ll dig into this...in a bit but to start? Why is it we are told the record shows continual increase in complexity of organisms from the simplest single celled one’s upward? That’s the book’s diagrams always pushed upon us.
Then the different types of catastrophes you speak of? We went from one single large land mass to what we have today, you don’t think to get there along with what the bible tells us happened? That you would not have all the types your claiming are in the record and then we see Mt Saint Hellen’s aftermath the rocks that are claimed to be so old in how many years now?-)
We do see a continual evolution in the record. Many though don’t know what that means. They believe that it means all species evolve. Some don’t change for millions of years dramatically at all.

There had been various supercontinents and break ups.
 

Lookupnotback

Active member
Sep 26, 2020
169
47
28
Piltdown Man in 1912 was a fabricated hoax, projecting the missing link between ape and man, and they kept it silent for 41 years, until it was in every public school text book and museum around the world.

The lie continues, the names have been changed to protect the guilty.
...hey! Wait a minute!?? Is this anything like who is accused of hanging out with the Russians vs who actually has been?-)
 
F

Fundamental

Guest
We do see a continual evolution in the record. Many though don’t know what that means. They believe that it means all species evolve. Some don’t change for millions of years dramatically at all.

There had been various supercontinents and break ups.
We, Biblical creationists, don’t deny species evolve.
We deny species can evolve from single cells into complex cells branching up in so much leading up to humanity.
 

Skovand

Active member
Aug 17, 2020
359
54
28
Southeastern USA
No we can not. All genetic material being able to research that is wasted in those fossils.
You can dig up species and want them to be related, but you will never be able to do genetic research to give ultimate conclusion.

How would you know the homo erectus is an ancestor of you and not just some species gone extinct? Homo Sapiens survived easy because they wore clothes and knew how to make fire.
So did neanderthals. They made art also.


We don’t typically do genetics on fossils unless they are found preserved in ive and within several hundred thousand years. But what we can do is run tests on current genes and see what mutations they have verses others in their family and see what changes we can see and how far back and then see if they correlated what’s in the fossil record.

As for st Hellens there are lots of writings and records.
 
F

Fundamental

Guest
So did neanderthals. They made art also.


We don’t typically do genetics on fossils unless they are found preserved in ive and within several hundred thousand years. But what we can do is run tests on current genes and see what mutations they have verses others in their family and see what changes we can see and how far back and then see if they correlated what’s in the fossil record.

As for st Hellens there are lots of writings and records.
But do you not see the possibility of multiple more outcomes then what the theory of evolution is trying to teach us?
That we shared a common ancestor with apes and evolved into modern humans?
Making you related to practicly all species on this earth through evolution. Because if they say you originated out of fish, you also originated out of everything following that up.
Do you honestly see no other outcome? That those species simply went extinct and our bio diversity was once much richer then it is today?
Being explained in the Bible by a global flood. That is where dino’s got extinct. These stories about dragons and pictures of dinosaurs are no coincedences but based on actual interactions with them in the past.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
The issue though is that in each geological layer we see different sizes and masses. It’s not just large creatures at the top or bottom, but small ones and large ones ranging from flora and fauna.

It’s also the issue that sediments are not based on weight either. We find different layers with different chemical compositions.

We also find fossils in a wide range of environments. We find fossils that were created by flooding. We find fossils created by volcanic ash. We find fossils of animals they feel through ice and froze. We find fossils underwater from where something like a storm stirring up sediments. We find fossils from animals trapped in saps and amber. We find fossils of animals that feel into tar pits. We find fossils of animals covered by mudslides.

The other issue is the morphology of fossils. When we go to the earliest fossils we only microorganisms we then only find plants. We then find insects. We also find these things throughout every layer but in the earliest layers it’s less diverse. But we do still often find giant extinct club mosses, ferns and so on.

We can trace the primate family. We can go back to where all primates we’re walking on all fours. We can then find the start of fossils with differently shaped knees and ankles and rib cages. We can then start to find bipedal ones that become humans over millions from years. We then begin to find ages where tools and burials start. We don’t find mammals on geological time era where there are just amphibians. We don’t ever find T. rex fossilized next to humans. We never find evidence of fossilized tool markings on T. rex and so on. But we find different smaller and larger mammals and plants there.

The fossil record and geological eras are not depressed by species size and mass but morphology.
You support man's claim of evolution, where are transitional forms found in the fossil record?