|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fossil Ordering Re-Visited | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
There is another flood model that does not use mobility in its argument. It argues that all land-dwelling animals and fossils were all wiped out and destroyed during the flood leaving little trace. It is quite an interesting read. I will copy the most important and interesting part of it for you to take a look at here, from This site: -
The Bible describes the events of the first day of the Flood like this: "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Genesis 7:11)According to this passage, the Flood began with the fountains of the great deep breaking up, accompanied by torrential rain. An important question confronts us: what were these fountains of the great deep? A study of the Hebrew indicates that these were pre-Flood terrestrial springs, issuing forth subterranean waters to irrigate the ground (Hasel 1974). Genesis 2:6 indicates that this was how the earth was watered before the Flood. In other words, there appear to have been vast underground water sources beneath the pre-Flood continents. The Flood was initiated by the breaking up of these fountains of the great deep, releasing vast quantities of possibly superheated water onto the continents. Such an event would have been accompanied by the most catastrophic earthquake, volcanic and tectonic activity (Figure 6). Genesis 6:13 and 9:11 tell us that the Flood did not passively cover the earth, but destroyed it. As the continental crust broke up, the pre-Flood land surfaces were destroyed, and any pre-Flood hills were levelled. The heat released would have baked the crust, producing metamorphic rocks. Much of the water from the fountains may have been ejected high into the atmosphere, to fall as rain. This was the time at which the Flood was at its most violent. Nothing could have survived on land. This is one of the reasons why it does not make sense to explain the order of the fossil record as a result of the different escape abilities of people and animals as they fled to the hills for refuge, as suggested by Whitcomb and Morris. The continents were being scoured down to their roots - there were no hills to which men and animals could flee! It is difficult to imagine how any terrestrial creatures could have survived the initial fury of the Flood. Figure 6: A reconstruction of the events of the first day of the Flood (from Robinson 1996 p 45). The Flood began with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, accompanied by torrential rain. The biblical text indicates that all the land-dwelling air-breathing animals were obliterated during this early phase of the Flood. For instance, God said to Noah: "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." (Genesis 7:4)The text goes on to say: "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth....All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth...." (Genesis 7:21-23)It is interesting that the Hebrew word translated "destroyed" in these verses is "machah", the same word used in Psalm 51 in which David is pleading with God to "blot out" his transgressions. When God blots out our sin he remembers it no more: it is as if our sin had never existed. In the same way, the forceful nature of the text in Genesis indicates that the destruction of the land-dwelling air-breathers was total. We should remember again the violence of the Flood. The original land surface was being stripped away, there was widespread volcanism and metamorphism, physical dismemberment by buffeting waters, abrasion and pulverisation by sediments, and chemical decomposition. Not a trace of the land-dwelling air-breathers was left - not even as fossils. One of the striking features of the geological record is the complete absence of any fossils of air-breathing land animals - or tracks or traces made by them - in the Precambrian or Lower Palaeozoic rocks. Terrestrial air-breathers do not begin to appear in the record until the Upper Palaeozoic. It is suggested, therefore, that the Precambrian and Lower Palaeozoic represent the complete wiping out of the antediluvian world during those first few terrible days of the Flood. As scripture indicates, the land-dwelling air-breathers were completely obliterated without trace. [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-01-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
I only recently found the article, so don't ask me much about it.
From this quote from the article,"Living animals can walk and leave footprints; dead animals cannot. We have already emphasised the suddenness and violence of the Flood. The Bible describes the total annihilation of all the pre-Flood air-breathers in the first 40 days of the Flood. We should expect, therefore, to find no evidence of living land animals (e.g. their footprints) in Flood layers, but plenty of evidence of living land animals in post-Flood layers, after the animals had stepped off the Ark and begun to repopulate the earth. We can therefore look at the distribution of footprints in the geological record to help us identify Flood rocks. Figure 10 shows the distribution of tracks (Garton 1996). The Lower Palaeozoic layers are devoid of tracks. Amphibians and reptiles characterise the Upper Palaeozoic, reptiles the Triassic, and dinosaurs (with some birds) the later Mesozoic. In other words, the tracks of air-breathing land animals lie on top of thousands of metres of sediments that contain no tracks. This distribution can be understood if the Flood ends in the Upper Palaeozoic. This would explain why tracks are absent from the Lower Palaeozoic - these are Flood rocks laid down at a time when all the land creatures had perished. It would also explain why the tracks of terrestrial creatures characterise the Mesozoic - these are post-Flood animals descended from those on board the Ark. The amphibian and reptile tracks in the Upper Palaeozoic appear to be those of semi-aquatic creatures that were able to survive outside the Ark (Robinson 1996, pp 52-53). " it would seem that it postulates that the mesozoic is post flood. The article has interesting ideas, such as this one for explaining why dinosaurs seem to be oldest-because they are the fastest moving land animals after the flood, allowing them to colonize the rest of the world quickest."In these turbulent post-Flood times major tectonic activity continued. Convincing geological evidence indicates that towards the end of the Flood, the continental plates had collided to form a Cambrian supercontinent, which geologists call Pangaea. This was providential in that it allowed the rapid recolonisation of the Earth by the animals preserved on the Ark. It appears that in early post-Flood times, this supercontinent began to break up. Hot magma rising at the mid-ocean ridges buoyed up the oceanic crust, displacing ocean water onto the continents. This led to the re-inundation of some continental areas after the Flood." This could possibly provide a source of the dinosaur tracks-the dinosaurs recolonizing the world after the flood. Somewhere else it gives a reason why mammals seem to come after; because Recent studies have indicated that dinosaur reproduction rates were extremely high (Paul 1994). For instance, it is estimated that in about 40 years a sauropod dinosaur could have produced up to 4,000 eggs. In addition, it is thought that the juveniles grew very rapidly. The reproductive output of dinosaurs is thought to have equalled or exceeded that of rodents, and was much higher than large mammals like elephants. This would explain why dinosaurs appear in the fossil record before the mammals, which do not appear in significant numbers until the Cenozoic. Calculations show that elephant reproduction rates, for example, are such that we should not expect to find these creatures fossilised in the first 200 years after the Flood because the population numbers would have been too small (Robinson 1996 pp 63-4). The first indisputable elephant fossils are found in the Eocene, which accords very well with this model, in which the Mesozoic and Cenozoic represent the first two or three centuries after the Flood. Furthermore, unlike the dinosaurs, which lived on extensive mudflats, mammals prefer habitats away from water, which are less likely to be inundated to result in the fossilisation of their tracks or remains. Mammalian fossils are associated with the catastrophic land-based mountain building events of the Tertiary (Scheven, 1988). [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-01-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Well, from taking a look at the intro to the article, I think its safe to assume they're YECs. They just say that the dinosaur species, reptiles, birds, and mammals occur in the fossil record in that order because of the time required to move and recolonize the earth, the reproductive rate of the organisms, etc.
The pattern of reinundations you talk about according to the article are due to the post-flood effects. A group of European creationists has argued that the geological record from the Late Carboniferous to the Pleistocene was not laid down during the Flood, but during the turbulent centuries after the Flood. They suggest that the Flood/post-Flood boundary may be within the lower Carboniferous layers. A more detailed treatment of this model may be found in Robinson (1996), Scheven (1996), Garton (1996), Garner (1996a, 1996b), and Tyler (1996), which were published together in the Australian Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-01-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: quote: And of course, their references: -
quote: [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Well, I'm not a geologist so I don't know too much about it. Instead of asking me about it, why don't you ask the authors of the article? Well, anyway, those references were for your benefit because you wanted to see the evidence they used in the article
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: I got some information from this site
quote: [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Yes, I saw the rest of that. However, it does not say what the interpretive error is. Since they put that example there, it is weird they didn't give the solution or their interpretation of it.
quote: I'm not sure wether the commenter is trying to challenge the creationist interpretation or the conventional interpretation - or make a totally different interpretation. [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: And I'll look in mine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
News article talking about new evidence of lava dam failure and fault activity supports the theory that the Grand Canyon is a geologic infant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
No-it just shows that interpretations can be wrong. How do we know this one is right as well?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: But it has to be interpreted. Different interpretations lead to different conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: I didn't say that. I just said that evolution can be wrong. Like how Aristotle believed in spontaneous generation for many animals-because he couldn't see where they came from."From this fact it is clear that certain fishes come spontaneously into existence, not being derived from eggs or from copulation (mating).", overturned by Louis Pasteur. Like how Brahe's epicenter geocentric model was overturned by Kepler. And me, a typical anti-science Christian? lol. I don't think so. I wouldn't have any other job than one in science. I just think that we shouldn't follow evolution blindly, thinking that it is true and suiting our interpretations of the evidence to it. (Admittedly creationists as well as evolutionists do it).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: No problem
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: Because "everybody knows that evolution is true" makes many people suit their interpretation of the results into evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: It could be wrong--but there are two positions left-old earth creationism (progressive creationism) or ID-- intelligent design
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024