If the creation story in the bible is an accurate account of how god created life on this earth why doesn't it match the fossil record? [Spirituality & Religion]

@Crazywaterspring It's because the earth isn't billions of years old. That's just a guess by the scientists in Darwin's time to compensate for their disbelief that God created the earth in six days. They can't comprehend the fact that it's only 6,000 years old which throws out Darwin's theory of evolution which requires the earth to be billions of years old. What people won't do these days to try to preserve the lie of evolution just so that they don't have to believe in the one true God who lives forever.

*yawn*

@Crazywaterspring I wonder how far you went to school doing that to all your teachers.

@GodSpeed63

But here's the thing, my dude.
On your side for the claim of a young earth you have....your holy book.
On the side of the old earth we have geology, paleontology, anthropology, chemistry and yes, evolution.

And i don't want to hear any more of this facile and all too common creationist claim of "people don't [i]want[/i] to believe in god because blah blah blah".

No. Wrong.
People don't believe in god because they remain un-convinced by the evidence.
Maybe [i]you[/i] can choose to believe something which you do not believe but i can't.
If there was a good reason to believe in god then i would.
I don't want to die and disappear forever. I don't want to say goodbye to my loved ones forever. I would be happy to know that there is ultimate justice in the world.
But i simply don't find the case for god to be compelling.

So don't insult me and other atheists by trivializing our reason for disbelief just so you can make sense of it.
A little respect, please.

@Pikachu Forgive me, I meant offense but science doesn't prove evolution, not one bit of it. If it did, then evolution would've been true. It's true, that you have the right to believe what you wish and nobody, not even me, has the right to take that from you. On the other side of the coin, there's responsibility to believe in truth rather than lie. Otherwise, our lives would be meaningless. I showed you all the evidence i'm going to show, if you disagree with it, that's your choice. Just don't tell me that I didn't show it like Suzie1960 has done. Okay?

@GodSpeed63

[quote]science doesn't prove evolution, not one bit of it[/quote]

But it does show evolution to be the best available explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.
If you would like to contest that assertion then i would be happy to give you evidence showing evolution has taken place.

I'm not trying to be a dick. I just honestly don't see any evidence that you've presented for creation over evolution.
You've made several faith claims and misrepresented some of the science but i have't seen anything that could in any scientific or way be considered evidence.

Have you ever done those tests yourself or are you taking the word of those that did those tests? If the latter is true, what makes you think they haven't made any mistakes and were wrong about their findings? If you did the tests on your own, how do you know that you've never made any mistakes in your findings? I admitted that I'm no scientist but I do know enough to tell when something isn't right about it. Like I said before, science degrees or science awards do not the scientists, it's what's in their hearts that do. Again, don't take my word for it, look it up.

@GodSpeed63

Sorry, but i'm tired of this excuse. It's trite and it's facile and it's an abdication of intellectual integrity.
"Well the science totally disagrees with my belief so i'll just say the science is wrong".

When you go to the doctor do you trust his expertise or do you go to medical school so you can diagnose yourself? When the geneticist tells you that you have 25% irish heritage do you go get degree in genetics before you believe him?
No. Just when it comes to the science which contradicts your belief.

This excuse amounts to a conspiracy: [i]All[/i] the scientists in [i]all[/i] the fields from [i]all[/i] the different countries and universities and backgrounds are wrong. They're [i]all[/i] liars or they're making the same mistakes.
That is not a rational conclusion nor a likely scenario.
Either EVERYTHING is wrong....or one thing is wrong.

I never said science is wrong, those are your words. The doctors go by what I tell them and they have been known to misdiagnose a sickness or an illness. Doctors are not perfect and neither are scientists, even famous ones. BTW, I have 14.2% of Irish in me. The rest is English, Scottish, French, German, Italian or Spanish, and American Indian. You still haven't told me if you watched those videos yet.

@GodSpeed63

What you said was what if they made mistakes. The implication being that maybe all the science and all the scientists have made the same mistakes and that actually the earth is 6000 years old and evolution didn't happen.
I fail to see the practical difference between that sentiment and saying that the science is wrong.
Yes, doctors make mistakes some of the time. But ALL the doctors are not making the SAME mistakes ALL the time.
A geneticists may make mistakes but they aren't all making the same mistakes.

Do you understand what i'm saying? There can be no scientific consensus of mistakes.
So we're back to either they're all incompetent or liars, either everything thing else is wrong...or the bible is wrong.

[quote]You still haven't told me if you watched those videos yet.[/quote]

I did. I told you i was watching the case for christ since you've agreed to read my link showing transition in the fossil record.

@GodSpeed63 You argue that if one hasn't done the tests oneself, then how can one be sure that the people who did the tests aren't wrong. Alternative, if one does the tests oneself, how can they be sure that they haven't made a mistake. Seriously, you are implying that nobody can come up with a factual argument. Ok, I'll play that game: How can you be sure that the Bible is factual? Apply your own logic to this question with an open mind, please.

Now, Archbishop Usher made the calculation that the earth is only 6,000 years old in the 17th century. Now, let's see if you can tell us how he came up with this answer?

@Bushranger If the Word of God (Holy Bible) was written by men alone, then I'd say, you're right, how can these men be sure that they're not making any mistakes? God gave testimony in His Word that He wrote it through those men by His Holy Spirit so that no mistakes were made. That's interesting about the Archbishop. The only answer I can give is that he miscalculated being that he's only human.

@GodSpeed63 So you are saying that the earth isn't 6,000 years old? How old is it then?

@GodSpeed63 I just checked your previous posts. You claimed that the earth is 6,000 years old, then say that Archbishop Usher miscalculated because he was anly human. Can you see the discrepancy in your statements?

Am I to take it that if something is outside of the Bible, then it is inherently inaccurate?

In the 17th century, the earth was less than 6000 years old. Today, it may be a little more than 6000 years old. It says in God's Word that a day to Him is like a 1000 years to us. Only God really knows how old this earth is.

@GodSpeed63 And I take that all the science that says that is not true is wrong? Oh, I know, God created all the measurement systems and humans have not learnt how to interpret them correctly because we are still full of sin. Can you please present a logical argument with external verification. I have heard claims that atheists are brainwashed and narrow minded, but seriously, your fixation and lack of understanding of science and nature is truly amazing.

@GodSpeed63 Only God knows how old the earth is, but you are willing to state that it is 6,000 years old now, but it wasn't in the 17th century lol.

One of my brothers in Christ took the time to count all the years recorded in the Word of God and added the years since it was last written. He came up with that figure. It just means that we're living in the last days before Jesus come back and judges this fallen world.

@GodSpeed63 So your brother in Christ is correct, but Archbishop Usher isn't? They both used the same basic method and came to the same conclusion, but one is right and the other wrong? So, if it's not in the Bible it's wrong. Guess that means that the device that you are using to make your posts doesn't work. Your logic is interesting, even if your rhetoric is poor.

Remember, the Archbiship back then didn't have a calculator or a computer like my brother in Christ did. It's more likely he would've made more mistakes in his calculation than my brother in Christ would've made. Okay?

@GodSpeed63 But he came up with the same answer. Perhaps your brother's calculator was wrong too. Given that to make those calculations only really required the simple act of addition, did your brother in Christ really need a calculator. Come on, give me more. I'm really starting to get into your sense of humour. Tell me, do you do stand up gigs too?

Are you here to know the truth or did you make up your mind already?

@GodSpeed63 And you haven't made your mind up? I am always looking for truth, however, I would expect it to be backed up by facts. All that you provide are rhetorical statements based on limited sources. For example, to make a statement that Usher must be wrong because he didn't have a calculator or computer is ridiculous. A lot of serous mathematics was accomplished before the invention of computers. On the other hand, are you saying that your brother in Christ is inspired by God and, therefore, is more believable than a 17th century Archbishop? It is all very confusing and unbelievable. Give me confirmable proof and I will convert immediately. But when I say confirmable, I mean proved by sources external to the Bible and peer reviewed.

You didn't answer my question.

@GodSpeed63 I think that I have. But if not, then I am guilty of behaving in the same manner as yourself.