Posted on 10/22/2009 7:38:11 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Years ago, National Geographic published a remarkable photograph of a polystrate fossil, a fossilized tree that
extended stratigraphically upward through several layers of rock in Tennessee. Its roots were in a coal seam, and the
overlying deposits included bedded shale and thin carbon-rich layers. An advocate of any form of uniformitarianism
would believe that it took many, many years to deposit this sequence of layers (much longer than it takes for a tree
to grow and eventually die and decay), yet one vertical fossil extends through them all. This one fossilized tree offered
a direct contradiction to the evolutionary mantra that "the present is the key to the past"...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
I prefer an educated populace that is willing to question scientific statements of fact that have little or no basis in factual evidence.
Some overly-proud ‘scientists’ of our day act like discovering a new process is tantamount to being the inventor / designer of same.
You may have an opinion or theory to how something was formed from the past, but without observation your conclusions are still at best a guess.
You expect me to answer for God? If He said that is how He did it why do you feel the need to question it? Maybe if you read the book of Job you can get a proper perspective on these matters. As well as learning to reject the most popular mis-conceptions about God that mankind has always made throughout history.
No. But there must have been some lesson that God wanted to give to us by doing it the way he did. If it was that important, why don't you know the lesson he wanted to transfer to us? Or is the book of Genesis just not really important?
“Polystrate fossils have been understood for over 100 years.”
By scientists, yes. However, only recently have creation rationalizing pied-piper frauds begun to willfully misinterpret them to secure their own standing as a false prophets among those of weak faith.
Were you standing there at the moment of creation?
God could have just poofed Adam and Eve out of nothing. He must have had a reason for creating Adam from sand and Eve from Adam's rib. When will we know what he was trying to teach us with this symbolism and why are dismissing this important lesson that God is trying to give us?
OK, I’ll bite (probably only to regret it later).
What lesson(s) did you learn from this small portion of Genesis?
You evos have you fun and keep trashing these posts with your nonsense if you want. I have better things to do.
Leading mankind to religion by deceit, omission, misstatement, exaggeration, and fantasy. What a bizarre view of God these people have.
“Why did God create Adam from sand and use Adam’s rib to create Eve when he created the whole universe from nothing? “
Because the chimpanzees were too busy thrashing Samsonite suitcases to be bothered with being participants in some evolutionary scheme.
Why don’t you ask God that question?
A partial answer to the question might be that since man is composed of matter and spirit, it was fitting that his body was formed from pre-existing matter. That Eve was generated from Adam’s rib, aka X-chromosome, was something He told us about, but it took us 6,000 years to understand what was being said.
Ya think?
and sadly, read this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2368427/posts?page=233#233
“...Adam’s rib, aka X-chromosome...”
What?
When a general statement is made, it takes only one counterexample to disprove it. In this case, the slow motion evolutionary mindset explanation of the strata with millions of years assigned to each layer is a general theory. The rude presence of even a single tree spanning to supposed chronology is THE counterexample, which must result in the general theory being completely revised, or thrown out. But if truth is not the object here, then maybe we can put a tarp over the tree and continue with the “once upon a time” lecture?
“The rude presence of even a single tree spanning to supposed chronology is THE counterexample, which must result in the general theory being completely revised, or thrown out.”
If it were truly a counterexample to the theory, you would be correct. However, the existence of such fossils has been well understood for some time.
If you’re going to try to defeat a theory with logic, you must fully understand and properly define the theory first.
So you are willing to admit that some of this is a metaphorical account written in a way to describe it to people who didn't have the scientific capacity to understand concepts we recognize today?
Like "Temple Of Darwin" ranting, I hope....
You just have to love the simplicity of God-given scientific thinking.
An evolutionary gene that sadly seems to be missing in the literalist gene pool.
Does that mean that God intended man to be the birther of new life and not women? And when Eve betrayed God, He decided to make woman the source of new life and the pain that went with it. Perhaps?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.