Bible contradictions?

[NoMoreFaith]

The blue whale arose within 40 million years, a small time by any evolutionary standard, while the mesonychids remained virtually unchanged in the same time period, as did most other species. I bring up whales because they are an example of uncanny accelerated evolution, and also a digression--organisms arose from the ocean, and then they inexplicably return. The question is why.
Why it's unlikely: http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.htm

Yep, its one of the least accounted for transitions, agreed. That doesn't really disprove anything does it? Especially when you had to search pretty hard to find examples of poor transitions.

The fossils that have been found show clear similarities between whales and their predecessors, its just not as complete as other records.

The link you posted was hilarious thanks, their evidence that the transitions are only shown in the water in pictures was beautiful.
We theorise amphibians and draw pictures to prove it. Is that really what you think palaeontologists are doing all day? Drawing pretty pictures?

Did it ever occur to you to read something other than a non-scientific webpage about these things?
Of course not, you have private conviction, therefore everything must fit with your conviction and you'll believe anything that is written to try and desperately support it.
I have the luxury of reviewing several sources, and their criticisms, because I'm allowed to change my mind. Awesomesauce.

It is often depicted as an animal that is adapted to living on land and in the water. Of course, just like pakicetus, the artistic reconstructions of ambulocetus go beyond what the fossil findings justify.

Come on, take a guess, how do you THINK they figure they are amphibious. Taking the fossil records too far? Awesome. Ambulocetus spinal bones are adapted to undulate because.... doh.. I know, God knew they like to disco, its got nothing to do with being amphibious.

Thats right, evolution is wrong, God likes to give mammals the tools to D.I.S.C.O like a wild thing.Then separate the changes in different layers of geological formations. What a practical joker he is.

You don't need many bits of a spine to figure that out. We have almost whole skeletons, and what do you know it, it shares features with whales and land mammals. Is God just fucking with you?

If fossils are so rare, why do we often have dozens or hundreds of a given species... punctuated by blankness?

You require specific circumstances for a fossil to form, if those circumstances are not present. No fossils. Like I said, animals don't automatically become fossils you realise.
If the circumstances are right, any animal that dies there is going to create a fossil. If they aren't, none of them are.. is that too hard to understand?

I love how you hate the idea of transitional fossil, yet, when you die, you'll be one too. But really, we both know you're amusingly going to pull the transitional fossil card to infinite regress on the basis of personal conviction.

It's when they all died, when their functions intended for survival failed them. Why did they die all around the same time? The Flood is a logical answer.

Strange how mutable your concept of evidence is. Fossil record evidence is incomplete therefore untrue, but flood evidence is practically non-existent therefore true.
Strange world you live in.

Please. Convince us the flood actually happened.

No "incomplete" fossil record to hide in the gaps. Bring on the evidence for a global flood. Its friday and we need the entertainment.

[chi pan]

Transitional Fossil being a fossil remains of a creature which shares traits with older and newer fossils with a pattern of variation through the ages.

That definition appears to leave an opening to interpretation. All organisms have cells therefore that's a trait they share. and what exactly is the "pattern" of variation you speak of? It appears that variation is completely random, not a consistant pattern. It appears easiest to atheists to understand a transitional form when speaking of apes to humans, so tell me what fossil has been found to show transition of apes and humans that has not been faked or misinterpreted?

However, it is a rare occurrence, more damning of people whether scientific or religious than of the scientific method. It is the scientific method that exposed the flaws in the first place.

For instance, Christians can commit evil acts, therefore Christianity is evil would be a similar exaggeration which is not necessarily true.

That is not at all what I said. I said it has been shown repeatedly that scientists are willing to fake evidence, therefore maybe we should be skeptical when they present "evidence." you say these occurrences are rare but they are much more common than you think. I only touched on missing link frauds. What about embryonic recapitulation, Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis, and the Brontosaurus? Many organs were thought to be vestigial to prove the evolution theory. This is includes the human appebdix, Whale pelvis, and many more which we're proven false.

There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure.

Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in the Right Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall.

By your own argument, things like a stationary earth and flat earth were accepted for hundreds of years, so who are we to say they are wrong.

Those theories of flat stationary earth were not derived from the bible. They were formulated by scientists like Aristotle. If you're refering to when the church was going against the Copernicus theory that again was corruption in the church, not biblical falsehood.

I absolutely can. People are people, and some people have motivations contrary to the truth. This is the same for religion as for science. However science has a method to catch them in their lies.
Wheres religions method to catch lies? Your frauds went for hundreds of years in some cases.. and it had to call on science to prove it.

I have nothing against the scientific method, I just don't think it's being used properly. Do you really think that the scientific method was used to say a single tooth was evidence of a missing link? Please. I don't care what tooth they found, that is not evidence of a missing link. They drew pictures of what they thought Nebraska man would look like. Him and his wife in great detail all derived from a single tooth. Science? No, just wild imagination. That's what evolution is and continually shows itself to be.

[Minimalist]

I don't think you want to place the flood in the Cambrian amigo,

Chippy thinks the Cambrian was a week ago, Thursday.

[KichigaiNeko]

It was raining if I remember rightly...

[NoMoreFaith]

That definition appears to leave an opening to interpretation. All organisms have cells therefore that's a trait they share. and what exactly is the "pattern" of variation you speak of?

Pattern being identifiable related to prior or future forms based on bone structure etc.

It appears that variation is completely random, not a consistant pattern.

Mutation variation is random, but for it to to become a species variation, usually requires natural selection. Important difference.

It appears easiest to atheists to understand a transitional form when speaking of apes to humans,

Liar. Horses actually provide the easiest to understand transitional form.
You know.. those things that aren't directly related to Giraffes lol

so tell me what fossil has been found to show transition of apes and humans that has not been faked or misinterpreted?

I'll let you know if you donate your bones to science.

Sorry, mean and unnecessary joke, human evolution isn't a speciality, but wikipedia can answer that if you cared enough. You're going to pretend theres a controversy about any mentioned, even where there is none except the paltry mewing of people like you who thinks their faith relies on evolution being false.

Secondly, the evidence is more than bones, something you wish to ignore. I take it you avoided reading the recent mapping of the Gorilla genome. I'm aware of the creationist take on it, and we can show how ignorant that is too if you wish to go there.

That is not at all what I said. I said it has been shown repeatedly that scientists are willing to fake evidence,

Faking evidence which complied with ALREADY EXISTING evidence.

As opposed to religionists who have faked ALL of their evidence.

You don't see a big difference. There was already evidence, and unscrupulous sorts faked a new bit for fame and glory.
You simply cannot claim every fossil is a fake.. theres just too many of them, and far too many of them. Hence why we deride your conspiracy and mass forgery theory.

therefore maybe we should be skeptical when they present "evidence."

Thats the scientific method, you can't just hold up a bone and say "missing link". Its peer scientists who examine the evidence presented. Maybe they can be fooled, but they don't get fooled for long. Decades maybe, certainly better than being fooled for 2012 years.

Once again, because its not sinking in. Scientists expose the frauds. Why would they do that if they were trying to convince you that your God isn't real?

The trick is to question everything. You do your best, and don't always get the right answer, and I agree with you totally that any discovery should be treated skeptically, but we question in the pursuit of truth, and you question to try and save a superstition.

Those theories of flat stationary earth were not derived from the bible.

Four corners of the earth ring any bells.

That God, his word is awfully tricksy, lucky he has people like you to change wha.... I mean "interprete" his words correctly eh.

Do you really think that the scientific method was used to say a single tooth was evidence of a missing link?

Is this the scientists spend their time drawing pretty pictures thing again? I thought we discarded that silly line of reasoning already.

Sure, a tooth takes a lot of extrapolation, and it may easily be very wrong. I agree. Now what? Does it disprove all the bigger skeletons and DNA evidence? Nope.
Does it mean the extrapolation IS wrong, nope. Do I take it as "gospel" that its right. Nope.

They drew pictures of what they thought Nebraska man would look like. Him and his wife in great detail all derived from a single tooth. Science? No, just wild imagination. That's what evolution is and continually shows itself to be.

It IS the "scientists just draw pretty pictures all day" argument!

I'm not going to credit that with an answer I'm afraid. Heres another SHOCKING PROOF of how false evolution is....
ssh, don't tell anyone..

We don't really know what colour dinosaurs skin was.. its mostly faked in the interests of promoting public understanding.

Of course that doesn't disprove the skeleton, and we know they probably weren't luminous pink.. but still.. .it must be a conspiracy.

So anyway. What happened to the flood evidence, I was dying to hear that.

Going back to fossils, lets focus on the more complete record, such as that of the Horse, Hyracotherium to the modern day. Plenty of full skeletons found, showing smaller scale changes in mass and structure leading to the modern horse.

[Zen Badger]

Please. Convince us the flood actually happened.

No "incomplete" fossil record to hide in the gaps. Bring on the evidence for a global flood. Its friday and we need the entertainment.

Don't hold your breath mate, he still has yet to prove that the universe is only 6000 years old.

[KichigaiNeko]

No the sun was out...(rare event) ... and all the happy little marsupials were having a great day ...until....

[The Grand Nudger]

That's correct Chip, all organisms have cells, and again this is a good indicator of common decent, not just among this or that group, but all groups. If we found some organism that was structured differently, some other mechanism that performed a similar function to a cell but was markedly different, we'd start to wonder wouldn't we? We all share an ancestor that leverages a thing called a cell. I don't know why you think this is a problem for E by NS.

Yes, you said that it is shown repeatedly that scientists are willing to fake evidence, but you're just talking out of your ass. No one gives a shit what you say Chip, you burnt that bridge by repeatedly strawmanning what you believe evolution to be by means of easily demonstrated misinformation, are we clear? If you're going to lie to someones face, at least put a little effort into making it convincing or difficult to deconstruct. Now, it may be that at some point you were just repeating what you've been told, but you've been handed a mountain of corrections and time with which to retract or modify your claims, and you have not. I personally don't feel that this is the course of action of a person who is even remotely attempting to have an intelligent conversation.

Yes, science is self correcting, we don't always get it right. There are no claims to absolute truth in science, only a reasonable measure provisional certainty. This is a problem because?

Flat or stationary Earth was not a product of Aristotle, nor truly, even a product of the bible. It was a common belief for a long time in many areas of the world (it's sort of intuitive, though ultimately incorrect, when you think about it.... so it's understandable considering the tools at their disposal). The authors of the bible took the best science of their time and let it ride. It wasn't really their fault that the best science of the time was incorrect, and this isn't a problem until you invoke the "inspired by god" bit. If so, you'd think that the lord of the universe and creator of all things would have been able to easily disabuse us of our mistakes (unless the lord of the universe really likes fucking with us, in which case, I think you've given god the wrong name, probably ought to go with Loki from here on out). Before any attempt is made at the "explained in a way understandable to the people of the time' line of apologetics- the language and concepts necessary for a rudimentary understanding of the factually accurate narrative of both our origins and indeed the origins of the cosmos already existed and could easily have been explained to any civilization in that area at that time...and this is before I criticize the idea of an omnipotent god being incapable of simply "forcing" understanding.

Again, so you say, but every time you post something like this the value of the things that you say decreases.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Those theories of flat stationary earth were not derived from the bible. They were formulated by scientists like Aristotle. If you're refering to when the church was going against the Copernicus theory that again was corruption in the church, not biblical falsehood.

Heathen! The earth IS stationary:

1Chron 16:30 ...the world also shall be stable that it be not moved.
Psalms 93:1 ...the world also is established, that it cannot be moved.
Psalms 96:10 ...the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.

The earth is set on pillars:

1 Sam 2:8 ...for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Psalms 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.
Psalms 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
Jer 31:37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
Micah 6:2 Hear ye, O mountains, the LORD's controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth: for the LORD hath a controversy with his people, and he will plead with Israel.

And both Catholics and Protestants rejected the false and heretical teaching that we live in a heliocentric solar system.

"We are indeed not ignorant that the circut of the Heavens is finite and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center."
-John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis

"If there were real proof that the sun is the center of the universe... we should have great difficulty in explaining the passages of scripture that teach to the contrary."
-Cardinal Bellermine

It's only lately that sissy, namby-pamby Christians like yourself have been so willing to throw the Bible under the bus in favor of all that science and logic. We know that the earth is stationary and the sun moves about it. It is set upon pillars and the sky is a dome fixed above it (Gen 1:8). How dare you call yourself a "Christian" and yet reject the Bible whenever it suits your secular, science agenda?

[Nine]

YahwehIsTheWay is clearly the only true christian on these forums.

XD