Author Topic: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?  (Read 5110 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dynamic

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A Young Atheist
How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« on: May 18, 2012, 07:05:38 PM »
I was reading and according to my book,
The layers in the British isles are supposedly millions or thousands of years apart in the layers being placed. However, some fish and other things are buried through several of these layers

Oh, anyone want to see what a christian science book says about fossils, plate tectonics, and evolution? If anyone wants to I can post what it says so you can poke fun at it. :p
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

If you want to talk through skype, message me.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2012, 07:06:55 PM »
Source of the book?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Dynamic

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A Young Atheist
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2012, 07:09:36 PM »
Source of the book?

My "Christian science" book.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

If you want to talk through skype, message me.

Offline Dynamic

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A Young Atheist
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2012, 07:35:28 PM »
By the way, can I get as much evidence for human evolution and fossil records as I can get soon?
Getting ready to talk to a christian-doesn't-really-know-friend and I need to talk to him about this stuff.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

If you want to talk through skype, message me.

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2012, 08:58:48 PM »
I think you mean fossils that appear in geological layers where they wouldn't normally be expected. This could happen in a few ways.

First, plate tectonics. As plates move, and diverge, and converge, several layers can crash together, creating a new land formation, and jumbling things up.

Secondly, glaciers. Fossils frozen in glaciers that receded at the end of the Ice Age could be deposited on top of a layer, making it seem as though it was a relic, when it was just a matter of the bones being moved from one place to another via the glacier.

Thirdly, water. Animals tend to stay near water sources. As a result, many animals also die, and become fossilized, near water sources. A fossilized skeleton (or even the unfossilized remains)  drift downstream, are deposited in a different area of rock, covered up, and looks like it was fossilized there all along.

Forgive me if this is a rather crude analysis, as I'm not a geologist, but I believe those are a few ways that such things can occur.

Some believers might well suggest that such occurrences are evidence for the Great Flood. This is simply not the case. Evidence for the great flood would be in the form of fossil remains of every possible living thing, all in the same layer corresponding to roughly 4,000 years ago. Then, there would be no fossil record at all for quite some time afterwards, at least in most places. Mt. Ararat would be the epicenter for any fossil remains from anytime after that. Species would be distributed from that point outwards, with the highest concentration of species near the epicenter, and gradually decreasing as one goes outwards from there. However, none of this is the case, which is of course excellent evidence against the Great Flood.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6131
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2012, 09:37:43 PM »
The fossils you are asking about are the trees, etc. that seem to go vertical through horizontal layers of stone.

Right now in Oregon you can visit a lake in the Cascade mountains that was formed over 10,000 years ago when lava flowed across and dammed the McKenzie River not too many miles from its headwaters.

Many of the trees that lived in that valley when it flooded are still there. Standing upright in the deep waters of the lake. Ten thousand years later. In the meantime, layer after layer of silt has drifted to the bottom of the lake and is building up around those trees. At some point in the future, if conditions are otherwise right, that silt and those trees will turn to stone, the silt via compression, the trees via the fossilization process. And the vertical trees through layers of stone will then perplex theists a million years hence.

But not you, curious newbie atheist guy. Because now you know.  ;D
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Dynamic

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A Young Atheist
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2012, 09:47:43 PM »
The fossils you are asking about are the trees, etc. that seem to go vertical through horizontal layers of stone.

Right now in Oregon you can visit a lake in the Cascade mountains that was formed over 10,000 years ago when lava flowed across and dammed the McKenzie River not too many miles from its headwaters.

Many of the trees that lived in that valley when it flooded are still there. Standing upright in the deep waters of the lake. Ten thousand years later. In the meantime, layer after layer of silt has drifted to the bottom of the lake and is building up around those trees. At some point in the future, if conditions are otherwise right, that silt and those trees will turn to stone, the silt via compression, the trees via the fossilization process. And the vertical trees through layers of stone will then perplex theists a million years hence.

But not you, curious newbie atheist guy. Because now you know.  ;D

I don't really understand.

I'm asking how http://www.setterfield.org/polystrate%20tree.jpg

Formed when each layer is supposedly 10,000's of years old. I think you're talking about Spirit Lake I think?

I'm no scientific person so you may need to dumb it down for me. :p
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

If you want to talk through skype, message me.

Offline Asmoday

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Darwins +14/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2012, 10:17:01 PM »
Basically, you get polystrate fossils when you have conditions that keep organic material (like those trees) from decomposing. Trees that are completely submerged by water would be such a case. If nothing happens to them and they are not subjected to air, which would make them rot, the trees will just continue to stand there while layer after layer of silt will pile up around them over millenia.

Then, when the tree is completely covered by silt and the tree and the layers of silt themselves have been covered by hundreds of thousand years worth of material, they will be compressed to stone and the tree will turn into a fossil.
Absilio Mundus!

I can do no wrong. For I do not know what it is.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6131
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2012, 10:31:05 PM »
I'm talking about Clear Lake in Oregon.

I was going on memory, which I should never do. The lake was formed about 2700 years ago, not 10,000. I got the age of the lake mixed up with my next birthday.  :)

The photo you are showing is a tree that underwent the process just described by Asmoday. And that is what is happening now in Clear Lake. Spirit Lake, on the side of Mt. St. Helens in Washington, got filled by pyroclastic flows during the volcano and the water rose up to a higher level and refilled the basin. If any trees stayed standing during that event (unlikely, if you look at the destruction caused by the volcano as a whole) they would have been buried many many feet under just one layer of volcanic debris, which is different that the annual deposits of silt and organic material the are slowly creeping up the trunks of the dead trees under the water at Clear Lake. The headwaters of the McKenzie river still feel the lake, bringing in silt, and just as your coffee table gets dusty from dirt floating around in the air, so to does the lake's surface. The difference being that the dirt on the lake gets wet and sinks to the bottom. Given the dust and pollen and others sources of this dust are oft times seasonal, the silt piles up in layers, changing color and composition from season to season. Which is why, when it later turns to rock, you can see definite evidence of those layers.

I don't know how much material has piled up around the bases of the many trees at the bottom of the lake. But I have no reason to believe it is only a few inches. I trust it is much more. Much like what the photo you provided shows.

Do you remember how creationists explain the million year+ thick layer of ice in Greenland? Ice to is deposited in layers, with summer dust blowing in from the North American continent settling on the surface, and with the surface melting slightly during those summers, so that each annual layer is distinct. No, there are no trees growing through the middle, but there are, at least in Iceland, ice cores that have been drilled out with one million layers. Which equals one million years.

Added: This link goes to a picture of one of the trees:

http://geologicfroth.com/submerged-tree-in-clear-lake-oregon#


« Last Edit: May 18, 2012, 10:41:36 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2556
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2012, 11:51:34 PM »
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

"polystrate" is a creationist word. The problem was explained a long time ago.

Creationists have a problem with multiple horizons. For example, I have 3 layers of coal under me, at depths of up to 3km. When you get a tree growing vertically in the lowest layer, followed by a vertical tree in the next layer, 1000m above it, with its roots intact, this cannot be explained by one flood. But horizons are more complex than this, and have river beds, animal footprints.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/coal.html
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2012, 12:54:11 AM »
Source of the book?

My "Christian science" book.

What I mean is, what publishing out fit does it come from? Who published? Who wrote?  Title?

The information should be within the first few pages.  I think it would be fascinating to go and take a detailed look at it.  An earlier christian science textbook, which was mocked on pharyngula sometime ago, talked about electricity as if electricity were 'magic'.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Dynamic

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A Young Atheist
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2012, 08:22:08 AM »
Source of the book?

My "Christian science" book.

What I mean is, what publishing out fit does it come from? Who published? Who wrote?  Title?

The information should be within the first few pages.  I think it would be fascinating to go and take a detailed look at it.  An earlier christian science textbook, which was mocked on pharyngula sometime ago, talked about electricity as if electricity were 'magic'.

Nah, my cover is ripped off. But it is "SPACE&EARTH" something by I think BJU.

This is it: http://www.bjupress.com/bjup/images/fullsize/215533.jpg

There is a book A and book B.
Book A is mostly space and weather while book B is more geology and water and such.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

If you want to talk through skype, message me.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member

Offline Dynamic

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A Young Atheist
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

If you want to talk through skype, message me.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2030
  • Darwins +121/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2012, 08:47:17 AM »
Christ. Read the description:

"Space and Earth Science is newly revised to proclaim God's handiwork through the study of the physical universe. Affirming the young earth, creationist view of the Earth's history and rejecting the uniformitarian/evolutionary models so common in our modern age, the material presents a testimony of God's judgment and plan for redepmtion through the study of scientific philosophy, outer space meteorology, geology, oceanography and more."

*shudders*
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1242
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2012, 08:49:14 AM »
How do cretinists explain any fossil? 6000 years doesn't make any fossils.
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6131
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2012, 09:24:34 AM »
Christ. Read the description:

"Space and Earth Science is newly revised to proclaim God's handiwork through the study of the physical universe. Affirming the young earth, creationist view of the Earth's history and rejecting the uniformitarian/evolutionary models so common in our modern age, the material presents a testimony of God's judgment and plan for redepmtion through the study of scientific philosophy, outer space meteorology, geology, oceanography and more."

*shudders*

That is hilarious. What the f**k is "outer space meteorology"? Is that how the guys on the space station will know when to plant and when they should be using sun screen?

I'm imagining the report on The Weather Channel. "In outer space today, it will be sunny and cold."

Oh, and Brakeman, I've heard creationist claim that they have found fossilized shipping pallets buried in dirt, which they say happened in less than 30 years. To them that is proof that the dinosaurs could have died just recently.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2012, 10:05:16 AM »
Bob Jones University is the same one that published the gradeschool science book depicting electricity as unexplained magic.  Note, I tried to search through torrent sites to see if I could find any publications put out by BJU with little success.

However, I did find the article about electricity in a BJU science book:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/frickin_electricity_how_does_i.php



We're all just mindless zombies here at scienceblogs, but somehow, BJU is even more brainless. I swear, a creationist could walk by right now and I wouldn't even drool. But even in my decaying state, and as a biologist, not a physicist, I can answer this one.

Electricity is not a mystery on the level this book is discussing. There is a lot we don't know about fundamental particles, but we understand the principles of electromagnetism so well that we can use it to build hair dryers and Large Hadron Colliders; to make the argument that we are mystified by it is lying to the kids.

The common creationist argument that we can only know what we directly perceive with our unaided senses is also nonsense. One could argue that we don't really see people, what we do is gather photons that have been perturbed, we think, by a body, and infer the existence of a person…but that's sophistry. It is no less 'seeing electricity' to say that I can hook up a current meter to a couple of wires and see a needle move in response to the flow of electrons.

That second paragraph is a horror of gobbledygook. Apparently, they think electricity is something like oil, a substance lying in large deposits that must be harvested and poured into your hairdryer to make it work. A current, as mentioned above, is produced by the movement of charged particles, nothing more or less. The sun produces moving charged particles, so it is a source of electricity, and the movement of the earth generates an electromagnetic field, but I can also do the zombie shuffle across the carpet to build up an excess of charged particles and touch the cat to allow them to flow, creating electricity myself, like unto a God. I do not have to create particles to make electricity, I just have to make them move.

Also, if that little girl did not use electricity, she would be dead. All of the cells in your body create charge imbalances by pumping charged ions across their membranes, and using the flow of ions back across those membranes to create chemical energy — they are machines that convert chemical energy into electricity that is used to power little dynamos that create stored chemical energy. We also use the gated movements of charged ions to generate electrical currents in our nerves and muscles, which is how we think and move.

Isn't it nice how clearly religion is shown to be a science-stopper? Just take common questions, declare them a mystery and that no one has an answer, and presto, religion becomes an authority. An authority stuck at a dead end.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2556
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2012, 10:07:15 AM »
dinosaurs could have died just recently.

Like, yeah. The Egyptian pyramids were built by dinosaurs,
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Dynamic

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A Young Atheist
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #19 on: May 19, 2012, 10:15:08 AM »
I heard in my book the plate tectonics were something to laugh about as well as geology?

Anyone care for excerpts?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

If you want to talk through skype, message me.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #20 on: May 19, 2012, 10:51:56 AM »
Sure.  I wonder if they got them from AIG?  We saw a video from them[1] at our university, and they brought up a bullshit refutation of plate tectonics.  One that not only didn't address the (literal) mountains of evidence for plate tectonics, but whose actual argument was totally junk.
 1. by mistake - it was a random pull from the library
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Dynamic

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A Young Atheist
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #21 on: May 19, 2012, 11:04:46 AM »
Sure.  I wonder if they got them from AIG?  We saw a video from them[1] at our university, and they brought up a bullshit refutation of plate tectonics.  One that not only didn't address the (literal) mountains of evidence for plate tectonics, but whose actual argument was totally junk.
 1. by mistake - it was a random pull from the library

'Tis a rather large book and chapters on that stuff.
Any specifics?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

If you want to talk through skype, message me.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #22 on: May 19, 2012, 11:07:52 AM »
Are there phrases such as 'deep time' or 'long time' anywhere in relation to geology, plate tectonics, or evolution?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1387
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #23 on: May 19, 2012, 11:28:44 AM »
Dynamic: Do you go to a faith school/college or are you in a main stream school/college? As I can't understand why you would be given such a piece of sh*t science book. 

Edit: I just noticed another thread of yours, so disregard  my question.
Are you able to change schools as your not learning anything there.


« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 11:33:16 AM by bertatberts »
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline Dynamic

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A Young Atheist
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #24 on: May 19, 2012, 11:59:38 AM »
Dynamic: Do you go to a faith school/college or are you in a main stream school/college. As I can't understand why you would be given such a piece of sh*t science book.

I go to a private christian school that costs about 6k a year. I hate it. Dresscodes strict rules and more. Horrible teachers.

Are there phrases such as 'deep time' or 'long time' anywhere in relation to geology, plate tectonics, or evolution?

Quote
ORGINS OF MAN: APE OR ADAM?
The evolution myth has been almost universally accepted in the modern secular world. Evoltuionists view evoltuion as the old reasonableand truly scientific framework from which to interpet evidence. As a result they view fossiles through "evolutionary glasses." Evolution demands "missing links" between different species, especially between modern humans and whatever evolved into humans--commonly believed to be an ape-like ancestor. The fossil finds calimed as "missing links" to Homo sapiens (HOH moh SAY pee unz) have turned out to be insubstantial evidence such as pig's tooth (Nebraska Man), human skeletons that had been classified as missing links )neandertal Man, Cro-Magnon MAn) meaningless ships of bone (Java man), or outright hoaxes (Piltdown Man).
The fossil dubbed "Lucy" by its discoverer was originally thought to be a human ancestor with apelike characteristics that walked upright. It was classified in the species Australopithecus )aw STRAY log PITH ih kus), or "Southern Ape." This evaluation was based on a skeleton that was only 40% complete and was missing some key parts, such as most of the skill and hand and foot bones. Later skeletons of these creatures showed features of both tree-dweeling apes and kuckle=walking apes. Some evollutionists even speculate that the evidence is too skimpy to be sure that Lucy walked on its hinds legs at all. They now believe Lucy may be nothing more than a unique, extinct, ape-like species. The evidence, even at its best, far proves proves a missing link between prehistoric ape and man.
Also consider the evidence for the species of Neandertals, named for the Neander Valley in Germany, where the first fossils of this creature were discovered in 1857. Neandertals were said to be a prehuman species characterized by a sloping forehead, a large brain cavity, very heavy and thickened bones, and a hunched-over )Apelike) appearance. Paleontologists later recognized that these fossils are very humanlike. Recent discoveries indicate Neanadertals had a advanced culture that included clothing, ritual burials, and musical in instruments. Creationists believe that these fossils are the remains of post-Flood peoples. The heavy neanadertal skeletal bones are characterized by arthritis and thickening, which could be due ta vigorous battle for survival in a harsh environment. Humans probably faced very difficult living conditions for centuries after the Flood. Modern peoples living in extreme climates show similar phyisicl features. Some evolutionists are honest enough to admit the problem of the lack of conclusive evidence to support human evolution. A child who believe the Word of God can see what the most brilliant minds of this day miss: all human beings were uniquely created by God in his image.

AND

Quote
HUMAN FOSSILS
Bones of people who lived thousands of years ago have been preserved in the ground. Yet no fossils of "ape-men" have been found. You may have seen artists' drawings or even three-dimensional reconstructions of the faces of "cave men." The artists are relying on their imagination and preconceived notions when they make such reconstructions. The best reconstructions show that these ancient humans were so similar to modern people that, if they were dressed in modern clothes, you would not even give them a second glance on the street.
Do human bones in caves prove evolution? The Bible records people living in caves (Gen.19:30; 1 Sam 22:1) . People in ancient times often buried their dead in caves (Gen. 23:17-20; John 11:38). Naturally, them, we find bones in caves. Jumping to conclusion that bones in caves are from subhuman species is unscientific.
All the fossils that are supposedly prove man's animal ancestry fall into one of the following categories:
1. Completely human fossils
2. Misidenfitfied animal fossils
3. Hoaxes
Scientists have found no transitional fossils between ape and man. Evolutionists disagree about man's ancestry.  They cannot even agree about man's most recent ancestor. There are almost as many proposed family trees for man as there are scientists who study the fossils.

Anyone need more excepts? They may take a while to type.

Edit: sorry for the spelling mistakes and such in the paragraph. im in a rush.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 12:16:02 PM by Dynamic »
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

If you want to talk through skype, message me.

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1387
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #25 on: May 19, 2012, 12:21:43 PM »
Dynamic: Do you go to a faith school/college or are you in a main stream school/college. As I can't understand why you would be given such a piece of sh*t science book.

I go to a private christian school that costs about 6k a year. I hate it. Dresscodes strict rules and more. Horrible teachers.
Have you spoke to your parents, or haven't you told them you're atheist.
I'm sure, when they know they will be happy to send you to main stream school and save the 6k for your college education if you take one.
Unless of course, they are the kind of parents that want you to be something your not.
They may be a little disillusioned by your decision, but ultimately they will accept it, heck what choice do they have. You happy or you sad. 
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10611
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #26 on: May 19, 2012, 12:24:04 PM »
Regarding what bertatberts said:
You should ask your parents what they think of atheists and atheism (without raising any red flags). If their reaction isn't positive or neutral, my recommendation would be to keep it a secret until you no longer live with them.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 12:26:09 PM by One Above All »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6131
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #27 on: May 19, 2012, 12:45:50 PM »
I'm with One Above All on this. Once you are out of your home, you can do whatever you want.

And you can use the internet to get yourself an actual education. I hope that that actually teach some things, like math and english. The history is probably distorted, but all high school history is. So it is probably mostly the science that sucks. Don't worry about that. You can learn everything you need to know about actual high school level science in a pretty short period of time. And if you go to college, as long as you start at the freshman level, they sort of assume you don't know dick anyway and more or less start from scratch.

As long as you don't go to Oral Roberts University or some place similar.

If you do, One Above All and I will hunt you down and dope slap you silly.  ;D
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Dynamic

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A Young Atheist
Re: How do Evolutionists explain Polystrate fossils?
« Reply #28 on: May 19, 2012, 12:47:29 PM »
No, I have not told my parents I'm atheist. I've told one friend and that is it.

Anyways, can we talk about what my book says?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

If you want to talk through skype, message me.