There...fixed your sentence for you. I used to think they could exist. There even seems to be some wiggle room in genesis when you look at the hebrew words translated in a certain way. For instance Genesis 1:1 In the begining...The hebrew word is translated Berashit which can be meant to be "In an undetermined expanse of time" (In the beginning fits alot easier though) The 7 days of creation can also be made to seem that 1 day is longer than a 24 hour day as the bible says a millenia is like a day to God. Cant get around the timeline of humans though. Humans have only been around 6000 years. The first traces of civilization even by atheistic archeologist standards started around 3500 B.C. Whats interesting about atheists is that they can believe all life came from nothingness without help over millions of years, but they cant belive all life came from nothing over a few days with help from an extra-dimensional, eternal being (A.K.A. God)
I didn't say "possibility" of evolution for two reasons. 1) You can observe it yourself. 2) Coupled with #1, I don't believe God is trying to "fake us out" with the fossil record.
No. Not according to the Bible, not according to the fossil record, not according to carbon dating, not according to archaeological evidence.
Ricter you are spot on, i dont get how the 2 can not coexist, peacefully. Religious fanatics believe the bible literally, while scientists vehemently oppose the bible, where as my belief is you can take most of the bible and find your own interpretation of it. I think that most of the people who wrote the bible, and other religious texts were philosophers who were far ahead of their time. If you choose not to interpret these stories literally but search for the deeper meaning, i think that most religions have a beautiful story, which can actually hold a lot of value in most peoples lives. Take a story like Lot, and his wife being turned into a pillar of salt for looking over her shoulder while moving out of sodom when god commanded her to move out of sodom but never look back. My interpretation of something like that is not the normal one you would see from a religious person. I do not find that to mean, "obey god, or you will be turned into a pillar of salt". What i think the story means is that if you spend your whole life looking back at what is in the past your life can not move foreword any further, and thus you become a pillar of salt. If people would stop trying to interpret the bible literally and look for deeper meaning they would be far better off. Afterall Isnt spirituality about finding your own personal relationship with your god of choice? I dont even believe in catholicism, but i appreicate the beauty in the story, and i look for deeper meanings in all the different religious stories i read, and they are definately there. God may or may not exist, but i doubt i will ever know, so i just try to be at peace with the fact that i will never know any better, and try to find my own meaning in these texts.
1. How do i live for millions of years so i can observe it for myself. 2. God is not trying to "fake us out" with the fossil record...scientists are. They are telling us that fossils are older than they are. Take for example this picture of a fossilized foot inside a boot. I suppose you are going to tell me that this boot is 40 million years old.
Easy, clearly that's not a fossil. Notice how the bone is white -- fossils aren't white. Notice how there are unfilled voids on the inside of the bone -- not the case with fossils, and notice how the boot itself is specifically NOT "fossilized" and is in pristine condition -- you can even see the stitching on the boot. If the entire object was fossilized, all the cells would have been replaced with minerals, including the boot. While we're at it, look at the size of the guy's ankle. It's huge -- it fills up the whole boot because it's not a human ankle. Now look at the size of his tibia and fibia -- the fibia is MASSIVE compared to a human fibia -- look at those bones -- feel your own leg and notice how different those bones are from yours (no flat edge at the front of the tibia, for example) -- doesn't that look like a cow's leg jammed into a boot? It does to me. You, my friend, have discovered a cow's leg in a boot.
Thanks for the explanation that fossils are not white. At least I know for sure now that these velociraptor & protoceratops are not fossils. Like the boot, those two guys probably died 50 years ago too then. I mean...since they are similar in color to the foot in the boot.
you are one gullible dude. you will believe anything. when they say youe are supposed to have a childlike faith i dont think they ment you should have intellectual capacity of a child. http://paleo.cc/paluxy/boot.htm In June 2006 Baugh removed the original "Limestone Cowboy" article from his website, although a single paragraph in the "archives" still promotes it. He also did not display the boot among other allegedly anomalous artifacts discussed during his June, 2006 seminar at his Creation Evidence museum in Glen Rose, Texas. Although I have not been allowed to examine the boot in person, the above considerations alone invite strong skepticism of Baugh's claims. Whenever extraordinary claims are made, the burden is on the claimants to demonstrate their veracity, not on skeptics to prove them wrong. In view of this, as well as Baugh's long history of sensational and unfounded claims, a high degree of skepticism about this "limestone cowboy" boot is warranted.
LOL!! Now that tells me what we're up against in an argument like this... cross calibration is not the use of two methods.. it's using deception and calling it calibration... calibration is defined as comparison to a known standard, the deceptive calibration is comparison of two unknown things to each other... you've taken the discussion off course actually, that is the hallmark of the evolutionists, they cannot stay on the topic.. probably because they simply cannot imagine that they are wrong...
Thank you for posting a picture of cast reproductions. That's the second time you haven't posted a picture of a fossil. Just an FYI, museums display plaster cast reconstructions because actual fossils are too heavy. Plaster IS white, colored by an artist. Fossils show the shades of brown of the minerals. But seriously, all you got out of all those facts showing that you were wrong was "Oh yeah, some fossils are white?" Seriously? Not even the tiniest light went on that it's a cow's leg?