The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

quote:

---

Keep up the good work, Calypsis4. I collected this 'fossil' from Randle Cliff in the Calvert formation, Calvert County, Maryland, last Friday.

​

​

No evolutionist is going to convince me it's 15 to 18 myo.

---

Not a fossil.

quote:

---

Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms from the remote past.

---

Also you fail to understand how fossils are formed.Show me that same car completely replaced with minerals and you will be more accurate. No one is claiming that it would take millions of years to form a layer of calcium carbonate (or other quickly dissolving mineral) on your little car there.What they are saying is that if they discover that same car completely fossilized (ie, every part replaced by another minerals, however impossible), buried in a layer dated to millions of years old, found in a layer with older layers below and younger layers above, with other fossils independently dated at other locations to be around the same age, found above fossils of a certain era but below fossils of another and the materials themselves dated to around the same time then it's pretty safe to say it's millions of years old.Yet you come along and say that a few years of calcium carbonate build up disproves that? Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

I would very much like to hear this rebuttal of Post #6 as well. Even if the dating is wrong it still puts a crimp in the flood story. If the flood and Babel stories are correct why do we see this mitochondrial DNA in the America's only? I guess changing the DNA was part of the plan to confuse people later on?Actually I have a question to Coyote regarding mtDNA. Is there any way to use mtDNA to show a link between those of an Asian descent and those of an Americas descent?

Doh! You got me.
And here I was thinking you and Calypsis were good buddies. Oh well, I hope that my fossil analogy maybe will sink in with someone.

Thanks for the info Coyote, I found the site and I think it's really great. Of course for me to take it all in I will have to approach it the same way as eating an elephant, one piece at a time. My next question is to the creationists who believe in the flood. Why is it when a line of evidence exists that destroys the flood hypothesis, that the creationist diverts and points to something as only possible due to the flood? I admit at one point in my life I could only believe that a flood was the only answer. Yet after so much evidence builds up against it I just had to let it go. At what point do you say "These guys are right, it doesn't add up"?