Acceptance, Evolutionists vs. Creationists

I may be ignorant, but I am not willfully ignoring anything.
I hear evolutionists speak with great certainty and pretense authority about the fossil record.As far as I know from both creationist books and evolutionist biology textbooks, the fossil record has been constructed partly arbitrarily and partly by radiological dating. As far as I know, paleontologists find a fossil here and there and maybe a some bunched together and piece them into a record. If this is not how it is done, forgive me for swallowing lies. If this is how it is done, this is not sufficient proof for me.If there are at least two or three places such as the grand canyon where paleontologists can see the entire geologic column at once and find fossils morphing from the simplest life into today's range of phyla in the same order from bottom to top, I would be far more inclined to accept this theory. However, I know of no such place and have never heard of one. If such a fossil record exists in its entirity in one place in nature, please let me know.The simple truth is that for those who already believe in something it takes far less, sometimes nothing at all, for them to validate their beliefs. I think this is true of both creationists and evolutionists.

This is the beauty of the evolutionary theory. With unfathomable amounts of time and unfathomable numbers of events any discontinuity can be explained.But... If the world has been changing and eroding and upheaving at the same rate over the last couple of billion years, is it really reasonable that we see places like the grand caynon with uniform parallel layered strata and no evidence of upheaval or erosion between layers? But this is another topic.Can you see, though, that I have reasons for disbelieving the evolutionary theory. Although you do not accept my reasons, you must see that I am not simply ignoring things.Your standards of proof for evolution are much lower than mine just like my standards of proof of answered prayer are much lower than yours.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-07-2004 01:39 AM

---

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2

Right. You're telling me after 500,000 years no member of a species would leave us a fossil to find? Ah yes... most fossilizations only occur during rapid burial, an unlikely thing to happen. And of course if there were any left they would have been ground up in earthquakes, eaten up by the sea water, washed out by rivers or landslides, gouged out by glaciers, cratered by asteroids... And yet all the layers are parallel, flat, one on top of another showing no evidence that a huge chunk of geologic history was removed between geologic periods.Well it appears all the earth was under water at one time because 95 percent of all the fossils we find in any layer are marine.

---

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2

I don't know what ya'll think about Walt Brown, but he has an explanation at Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood He claims that liquefaction is responsible for this layering and groove and flute casts. He is assuming that these layers were laid down one at time instead of layed down mostly at once and then layered by liquefaction. An experiment can be done by shoveling some sediments into a waterjug and filling it with water. You take another water jug and hook both to a pipe and turn upside down. You tip the apparatus back and forth causing water to flow up and down through the sediments simulating wave action. After a while you see thinly layered alternating patters of sediments. In between layers a water lense is formed. This liquefaction theory claims the burrowers were gathered into the lenses and the pressed into the layer above when the water lense collapsed. I know that these 12 layers exist. The problem is that you find somewhere between four and tweleve. And places where you have few like the grand canyon layer is stacked on top of layer all the way to the top the layers stretch out for miles this way.At junctures where the other seven or eight layers were supposedly gouged out there is no discontinuity. The next period begins right where the last one left off without a dip or pause. Billions of years of history are missing yet we have no evidence to tell us what snatched them away. Its as if 2/3 of the layers in between simply disappeared without a trace leaving no major errosional irregularities behind.True, not every period of time will sediments be laid down. But if they are not being deposited they are being erroded away by rainfall or other more destructive forces of nature.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-07-2004 09:22 PM

OR it indicates that marine fossils are denser because they LIVE in water and do not float to the surface like vertebrates tend to do.

Well, an animal gets buried in sediment before its bones are eaten away by animals or the weather. The bones exchange their minerals for other harder minerals around the bone causing it to become a bone shaped rock.Is that correct?

Today, not very often. In a global flood perhaps a little more often. But hey... If you've got billions of years on your hands anything is possible eh? The point is we don't really know, therefore the fact that we find these fossils is not proof of evolution.I know, I know, its not that we find this scant record at all, its that there are patterns in them. Its these patterns that are irrefutable proof of evolution.Granted I don't know much about the patterns. I know many many people have claimed to fit them with the evolutionary theory. Nothing wrong with this. How many people have explored the patterns through the hydroplate theory of a global flood though?Right, I know... you don't need to do this because evolution is a fact. Sigh... I wonder who challenges authority more: creationists or evolutionists.

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant Corals and shells. The great majority of these marine fossils, corals and shells, ARE denser than vertebrates including fish and would not float when dead.

I wonder how deep the deepest fossilized footprints are? Not all fossilized footprints had to be formed during the flood. You are right, I'm really not quite sure how fossilized footprints would be encased and protected DURING the year of the flood.Also, after the flood waters receded, large precariously damed lakes would be formed waiting to burst and cause secondary floods. The earth would be quite shaken up by the flood causing other dramatic events such as lanslides that could cause these footprints to be buried.I must admit the most I've read on the hydroplate theory is from one source: Walt Brown's book In The Beginning: Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
I have also read some of the articles at talkorigins refuting the flood and hydroplate theory, but realized many of their presuppositions were based on evolutionary rather than hydroplate models. I am 18 and know many highschool and college students. The slightest elimination of God or any authority gives them reason to indulge in any kind of immorality. If some lab rats are practicing homosexuals theres no reason why humans can't be. From a hit song a while back, "Baby we aint nothin but mammals so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel."The idea that evolution does not influence a person's worldview is debatable, in my opinion false.If you are a christian and believe in evolution that is fine. But I cannot see how you can believe the Bible is God's Word and therefore perfect. Either evolution is correct or God deceived us or the Bible is fallible. So what if it tells us the right way to live? If God didn't make it or didnt' do a good job, Screw it, I'll just do what I feel like.There is a prophecy that in the latter days Satan's great lie will propogate throughout the earth and even many elect will be deceived. Here's my hypothesis: everyone believes evolution, but can't exactly prove how it started. The exit ressurection occurs leaving everyone grasping for answers. "aliens"/fallen angels tell everyone that they seeded life long ago and are here to check up on the progress. They have removed all the trouble makers those who stood in the way of progress (Christians) and taken them into a big alien ship in space until the world is ready for them to come back. Channelers (those who speak to demons) have already predicted this. Ever read any magazines from Sonora, Arizona? People who claim to have been abducted by aliens have said aliens told them something to this effect. Anyways, just something for ya'll to think about and immediately dismiss...Agreed the universe is marvelous. I don't know how old it is. I don't know for sure whether the six day creation event was actually six days (I'm still deciding). I don't know how long angels traversed the universe before God made man. But regardless of the theory, the universe does declare the glory of God.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-07-2004 11:09 PM

Well we are assuming of course the constants are in fact constant, an idea that even einstein was unsure of. If the very fabric of space is infact being stretched out, might not the constants be varying proportionally with one another? You've probably already debunked this idea too. But I wonder how many people have explored this idea? Quantized redshifts? Aren't they still largely unexplained? What about the pioneer satelite experiencing an unexplained decceleration? I just don't think we know as much as we claim to know.You do know much more about this than I do, so I'm afraid I'll have to get more of an education under my belt before I can argue into more detail.Oh yes the footprints. How deep is a few hundred million years?
When Mt. St. Helens erupted much snow and ice was melted causing mudslides which deposited hundreds of feet of layered sediments and also carved a huge canyon out of the rock, if my mind serves me right, 1/3 the size of the grand canyon. If someone had taken a walk in the park during the eruption, this mudslide might have buried footprints hundreds of feet deep.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-08-2004 12:05 AM

No comment on Mt. St. Helens?
What the pioneer deceleration has to do with the speed of light is that either the deceleration is occuring or the radio signals are slowing down due to the equation they use to determine its velocity.
There is no known cause for a deceleration.Its such a shame my knowledge is so limited or I might really be able to kick butt on here! Right... I'm addicted to this site now because I've been long deprived of argumentation... (I'm really a nice guy and don't like to piss people off).But whenever I get discouraged and feel like I'm losing (I usually am) I just remember that "The fool has said in his heart there is no God" and "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" and "I will make the wisdom of the wise foolishness", and some other things C.S. Lewis said, and...
... and then someone like crashfrog puts up a ridiculous argument like the one about sperm, me, and abiogenesis and I feel much better.
hahahaThis message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-08-2004 01:08 AM

Well, see, the way I understand it, and I haven't really heard anything different in a biology textbook nor from people on here, is that paleo's find some simple life forms in a certain band of layers (presumably older) at one site. They find some more advanced life forms in another band of rock (presumably less old) at another site. And still more advanced (if you can call it that: I've heard the trilobyte had the best eyes of any known bug) fossils at another site in a different looking layer closer to the surface (most digs aren't very far from the surface anyways, certainly not anywhere near the range of depths the geologic column extends) To me, this "pattern" does not seem reliable enough to justify dogmatic statements about a fossil record. We simply do not have enough information.

I'm sorry my post where I mentioned crashfrog's argument was probably not the Christian thing to say. After all I'm sure I've made plenty of arguments that justify a good laugh.As long as we only know in part, we will never agree on evolution, creation, God or atheism.The interesting thing is that pretty much everyone on here agrees that there is some universal truth. Thats more than most people can say. We just don't agree on what it is.Few people hold to any dogma.. They go about their lives in a funk, not really thinking about anything outside themselves.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-08-2004 01:35 AM

Wait a second. I've just been told that there could have been millions of years without a single fossil formed that would survive until today meaning our fossil record is hugely incomplete. You want to use this to justify the millions of missing fossils, yet you expect to find a dinosaur with every item on his plate in his stomach? Couldn't the dinosaurs with grass and cow in their stomaches have not been fossilized or been destroyed over a few hundred million years?

How do they measure it? Don't they measure it with a laser and an atomic clock? I could be wrong.All I'm saying is that man (myself included) tends to be arrogant and overestimate his own knowledge. This is a historical fact as evidenced by the numerous dogmas that have been discarded.And this is my final word for tonight... i've wasted far too much time on here already.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-08-2004 01:47 AM