Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossils, strata and the flood
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 40 of 163 (558450)
05-01-2010 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
04-30-2010 5:29 PM


Re: Re fossils
subbie writes:
Fossils on mountains are only evidence of a Noachian flood if you assume that the mountains have always been that high. Given that there are massive amounts of independent evidence showing that this is not the case, the only reason to make this assumption would be to save the flood myth. This, of course, would amount to circular reasoning.
You are entitled to your own beliefs. You are not entitled to your own facts.
You are correct on the facts subbie, but I think you are wrong on what YECs believe about the mountains. YEC do believe that there was one super continent with very little mountains on it until the flood. YEC would say that the waters breaking forth from the deep along with massive plate tectonic movements and volcanic eruptions formed the mountains during the catastrophic event. We can debate whether that is true or possible all we want, I'm just clarifying what a creationist geologist like Andrew Snelling would say happened.
That along with other events immediately following the flood such as an ice age.
Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 04-30-2010 5:29 PM subbie has not replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 46 of 163 (558463)
05-01-2010 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
05-01-2010 1:28 PM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
Hello RAZD,
This is an example really and quite simply how the two sides interpret the exact same evidence but the interpretation is completely opposite. Both you and Faith agree with the evidence...that there is a sizable marine fossil record where it should not be...up high in the mountains. The difference is clearly how the two sides believe the fossils got there.
RAZD writes:
This evidence shows that this growth occurred over periods of hundreds to thousands of years.
If the growth occurred during the flood, can you explain how multiple generations of decades old individuals happened in less than a year?
Can you explain how anything can be more that 1 year old in no more than one layer (or less if there are multiple layers)?
Note that many of the organisms are intolerant of silt in the water, many are fragile.
The following is from an AIG article (go ahead, flame away). I'll admit, I don't know allot about the author other then that he's a professor of geology at Cedarville University.
Should Fragile Shells Be Common in the Fossil Record? | Answers in Genesis
"In modern oceans, shells gradually dissolve in sea water or are consumed by other organisms. Experiments have shown that many shells, especially thin and fragile ones, disappear completely in a short period of time.
If the fossil record formed slowly, with individual rock layers taking hundreds or thousands of years to accumulate, you would expect fragile shell material to be relatively uncommon. Most of what we find should be thick and durable."
So RAZD, wouldn't this make sense. If the fossils (former sea shells) were fragile and little, wouldn't they stand a better chance of being fossilized quickly in a catastrophic event as opposed to over thousands of years where yes, they would fall victim to the ocean silt and predators? I'm not an expert on this so I'm really just presenting the other side and throwing it out for discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2010 1:28 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2010 2:54 PM Flyer75 has replied
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 05-01-2010 3:34 PM Flyer75 has replied
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2010 4:49 PM Flyer75 has replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 48 of 163 (558465)
05-01-2010 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by PaulK
05-01-2010 2:54 PM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
Think about what you just said Paul...of course, if Noah's flood were true, no one would have been around to observe. Noah and his family were in the ark. And no, there's been nothing equivalent in modern times either....I don't recall the earth being wiped out by anything in recent memory. We can observe small events and observe the results around that area though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2010 2:54 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2010 3:13 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 52 of 163 (558477)
05-01-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
05-01-2010 3:34 PM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
Thanks Percy for your post. But from what I can tell from the article, he does understand the difference. All Whitmore is asking is this:
"The real paradox for the old-age uniformitarian is that ocean mud is not accumulating fast enough for preservation to occur; so why does the fossil record have shelly material at all, if it has taken long periods of time to accumulate?"
I think what he's asking is, "if these shells can't last along time, even 10 to 100 years, then why do we see fossils of them at all if according to theory, it takes tens of thousands or more years to fossilize? What am I missing here?
Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 05-01-2010 3:34 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 05-01-2010 5:57 PM Flyer75 has replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 55 of 163 (558484)
05-01-2010 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by RAZD
05-01-2010 4:49 PM


Re: AIG Paper misleading hooey (the old shell game?)
RAZD writes:
The biggest problem facing Dr. John Whitmore is that his model is completely incapable of explaining the fossil shells of different ages - in his model there cannot be shells that are "10s, 100s, or even 1000s of years old" - they could only be the same age for a single event burial.
Thanks RAZD for your clear and concise response. It was very helpful. I do have a question about the above quote and the age issue. I have zero clue what the age or lifespan of a shell could be. Is that what we are referring to here or is it something else? If it is actual age, why could there NOT be more then one or more generations found together from one major event? You've brought it up twice now so you must have a valid reason for stating it.
Take care,
Flyer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2010 4:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2010 1:51 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 58 of 163 (558492)
05-01-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
05-01-2010 5:57 PM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
Ok, thank you Percy. I had no clue what a TAZ level was so that certainly helps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 05-01-2010 5:57 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024