Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

Coragyps,This is such a great point that it deserves to be a thread on its own. If corroboration of mythical stories by geologic findings is a way to judge the "Trueness" of a religion, then it would seem that a few creationists would have to start worshiping Pele.

You are of course, absolutley right, LM.NosyNed, please watch the digressions from topic!

quote:

---

Sloths don't swim, run, or swing in trees faster than velociraptors move in their sleep.

---

That is only because of the curse. Before Adam and Eve brought sin into the world, South American tree sloths used to be called the greyhounds of the trees. Come on, everybody knows that. Besides, velociraptors never existed. They are collage of bones that evilutionists through together to try and falsify the Bible, a divine book that they are all afraid of because they are athiests.Sorry, not enough creationist to go around so I thought I would step in.

ahahahaaaI was waiting for ark to say it was because the sloths climbed up the trees and the velociraptors were left on the ground ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

I was waiting for ark to say it was because the sloths climbed up the trees and the velociraptors were left on the ground ...

---

But the mountains would have been higher than the trees so the sloths would still have to outrun the velociraptors. Also, EVERY sloth would have to outrun EVERY velociraptor, which of course they did . . .

quote:

---

I was talking about the old worn out theory of evolution, and it's senile proponents.

---

Actually, lots of new evidence is provided all the time. And you mhave yet to have anything to contradict this with, other than your "but I don't WANT it to be true" tirades. Perhaps for a creation ist that is proof, but to the rest of the world, wishful thinking is not evidence.This tread have MANY posts with solid and documented evidence, and also have lots of creationist posts of unsubstantiated claims that are not proven despite many requests. Seems that the tired arguments are coming from creationists, thus making your claim false.You are engaging in what mental health professionals call "projection."This message has been edited by Steen, 07-01-2004 07:26 PM

quote:

---

PS easy on the links, try using your own short words, if you can.

---

And yet you ask for evidence?I guess this is EVIDENCE that you don't actually pay attention to evidence, basing your postulations on what you WANT to be the truth, regardless of how true it is.Well, that's really not surprising, as this is the general M.O. of creationists.

Never been observed to move? By who the people who died in the flood? Or sre we talking about the last several decades? If the continents already broke apart to their location, what great further movement is it that one would expect?

quote:

---

Modern mammals are ALWAYS ABOVE dinosaurs, EVERY TIME.

---

OK this is a clear puzzle. At this time I don't know. It would seem then that in our so far dug up portion of the earth, that the pattern is that the dinosaurs died first. Hmm, perhaps evolution's idea of the survival of the fittest, and strongest and biggest is wrong! Maybe there are other factors that mandated a slightly longer survival rate? Smarter, smaller, etc? Also how many of the 'small poll sample size' stuff that we found so far was of mammals that came off the ark? If these babies multiplied like a house on fore, is it any wonder the poor dead dumb old dinos would be buried underneath them?

quote:

---

Not sure on the ratio of grass vs grass pollen found, but I would think that the pollen may be in a position to be fossilized easier

---

Hmm, I would have suspected as much, if indeed the original grass was not a pollen type. This begs the question then, how can we be certain that it was not?!

quote:

---

What you have to explain is why we only find grass pollen in sediments devoid of dinosaurs and filled with organisms that are quite modern in morphology.

---

The above explains it well, unless it can be demonstrated we need look for another explanation.

quote:

---

Either grass came about after the ark, and therefore a product of macroevolution, or grass was around previous to the flood and the flood was able to sort small pollen grains

---

Since so much is unknown about the pre flood world, I could not say that sorting mechanisms were to blame here. As I speculated, unless it was a different type of grass before, than after. As far as it all coming off the ark, you may be right, if you can show me in the bible where my feeling is wrong, I will change my feeling on the matter. But my instinct tells me God had something to do with the plant end of things and probably the bug end as well!

quote:

---

Evolution and current geologic theories are derived from the evidence

---

Well people who might believe this would likely not believe in God. So they would not likely realize one was inspired by Him, the other directly by the devil. Don't worry about it, you don't have to believe this. The evidence can be interpreted more than one way, and can be deceptive.

quote:

---

PS easy on the links, try using your own short words, if you can.
"And yet you ask for evidence?"

---

Well I think I simply asked that the fellow say in essence, what his concerns were. Simple, short and sweet. We don't need a veritable prayer book of evolution mantras to get to the guts of the matter.

quote:

---

You are engaging in what mental health professionals call "projection."

---

And you are it seems engaging in what God calls "rejection"! --of the truth, so that one actually will really genuinely start to believe the lie! Watch out. Truth turned into fables (like granny bacteria, and the cosmic cup o soup) and fables cited as evidence. Your evidence is my evidence too. You just seem to project it into your fable, put on the evo robes, wave the hand, and expect everyone to say amen.

quote:

---

It would seem then that in our so far dug up portion of the earth, that the pattern is that the dinosaurs died first. Hmm, perhaps evolution's idea of the survival of the fittest, and strongest and biggest is wrong!

---

Exactly. In the fossil record, 65 million years ago there is a definite change in the type of fossils found. Almost 95% of the species that weighed over 50 pounds disappeared. At the same time we find evidence of a large meteor impact. It would seem that the environment created by the meteor impact strongly selected against large species, especially large reptillian ones. This total ecological "reset" allowed mammals to move into niches previously held by reptiles, hence we see an explosion of mammalian species after the meteor impact 65 million years ago. This theory fits in well with the fossil record, but does not fit at all with a violent flood since we would expect modern looking species to be mixed in throughout the fossil record instead of seeing a stark change in the fossil record. Evolution and long time periods makes sense when looking at the fossil record while a short time period interrupted by a catastrophic flood makes none. It is not about two equal interpretations, but about one interpretation that makes sense and one that makes no sense.

quote:

---

Also how many of the 'small poll sample size' stuff that we found so far was of mammals that came off the ark? If these babies multiplied like a house on fore, is it any wonder the poor dead dumb old dinos would be buried underneath them?

---

This would be like doing a telephone poll in New York city and ending up with 1 million republican respondents and no democrat respondents. Given the massive numbers of species that have been found in the fossil record this scenario seems very, very unlikely (but not impossible mind you). Also, we are still finding new species every year, and every one of them fulfills evolutionary predictions. In other words, random distribution of fossils by a global, catastrophic flood is not what we see in the fossil record.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not sure on the ratio of grass vs grass pollen found, but I would think that the pollen may be in a position to be fossilized easier
  —Loudmouth

---

Hmm, I would have suspected as much, if indeed the original grass was not a pollen type. This begs the question then, how can we be certain that it was not?!

---

Not really sure what you are arguing here. What we see today is grass pollen that is very easy to distinguish from other pollens. In the fossil record, we see the appearance of this easy to spot pollen in the same strata where grass appears. This seems to be a very logical, common sense way to go about the problem. To claim that grass either didn't use pollen or the pollen looked different would take some kind of evidence, of which you have supplied none. Again, science is about evidence not about scenarios that have no evidence whatsoever.

quote:

---

Since so much is unknown about the pre flood world, I could not say that sorting mechanisms were to blame here. As I speculated, unless it was a different type of grass before, than after.

---

First, you have yet to show that there was a flood. Second, do you think that grass and grass pollen does pose a problem for young earth creation theories? If not, why?

quote:

---

As far as it all coming off the ark, you may be right, if you can show me in the bible where my feeling is wrong, I will change my feeling on the matter. But my instinct tells me God had something to do with the plant end of things and probably the bug end as well!

---

That "gut instinct" within science is called a hypothesis. Hyotheses do not require evidence, persay. However, if you want your hypothesis to be taken seriously you have to support it with evidence, show how it can be tested, and give examples of how the hypothesis could potentially be falsified. This process is called science. Science is not driven by faith, but rather evidencing your point of view in a way that allows other people to objectively test it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Evolution and current geologic theories are derived from the evidence
  —Loudmouth

---

​

Well people who might believe this would likely not believe in God. So they would not likely realize one was inspired by Him, the other directly by the devil. Don't worry about it, you don't have to believe this. The evidence can be interpreted more than one way, and can be deceptive.

---

You don't have to believe anyone, the evidence is there for everyone to look at. Even before Darwin published The Origin of Species christian scientists realized that the fossil layering they observed falsified a world wide flood. Darwin was only able to construct a theory that gave the mechanism behind the fossil layering, but the falsification of Noah's flood had already happened. It was actually people that fervently believed in God that came to this realization. The only thing that they had to give up was a literal interpretation of Genesis, not a belief in God. Science is not the devil's handiwork, but a tool that humans use to explain what they see in the natural world, and a tool that they use to better humankind.Perhaps you can answer this question. Is the infallibility of a literal reading of Genesis a quality imposed by man on the Bible, or is a literal interpretation ordained by God? Nowhere in my reading did I ever read that God spoke and said "Genesis is 100% literal fact." Instead, Genesis reads like a collection of parables, a collection whose purpose is to portray the relationship between God and his chosen people through metaphorical moral plays. Given the similarity between Babylonian myths and the stories in Genesis, it is also easy to see how the Hebrews were trying to differentiate themselves and their God from their captors pantheon.Arg, didn't mean to be so long winded. I don't expect a response to every single point, but it would be nice if we could focus on grass and grass pollen at the least. Happy posting.

quote:

---

If the continents already broke apart to their location, what great further movement is it that one would expect?

---

Let's leave this topic alone for now. I would love to discuss it, but we should get through the fossil sorting for the moment. If you want we could start another thread to cover tectonics vs. quick moving continents.

now you beat me to the reply ... heh.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

And you are it seems engaging in what God calls "rejection"! -

---

Nope. Please don't make false claims about me. I don't reject God. I reject creationist lies that are blasphemous to God.

quote:

---

-of the truth, so that one actually will really genuinely start to believe the lie!

---

Rather, that's what creationists are doing.

quote:

---

Watch out. Truth turned into fables

---

Ah, like creationist wishful thinking and spun tales. Yes, we know them well.

quote:

---

(like granny bacteria, and the cosmic cup o soup)

---

Ah, more creationist claptrap and nonsense. Yes, we have ALOS seen that before.

quote:

---

and fables cited as evidence.

---

Now THAT we see all the time from creationists. That could be your autobiography.

quote:

---

Your evidence is my evidence too.

---

Well, only per creationists selectively using some scientific evidence out of context and then lying about the rest of it.

quote:

---

You just seem to project it into your fable, put on the evo robes, wave the hand, and expect everyone to say amen.

---

And once again, we see creationists like you lie about science.