Do creationists try to find and study fossils?

Uh, the creatures were BURIED during the Flood, but the fossilization processes occurred over time afterward. It shouldn't take more than a couple hundred years max. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Really?Then how come we find human remains from the time of Adam that are NOT fossilized?

Not in less than 5000 years they didn't! You'd know that if creationists ever bothered to study fossils. But of course they'd rather turn a blind eye to the facts and keep their noses in their Bibles. Complete and utter bullshit. Stated as a matter of fact when known to be false is, actually, lying. You don't replace organic material with minerals in a couple hundred years. That's just you making stuff up because you can't admit The Flood never really happened.That you're willing to go to such dishonest lengths to hold up your beliefs proves to me that even you don't believe them. You'll just say whatever you have to say in order to keep your Bible true. Its dishonest and pathetic.

You mean Oetzi of course. Sorry, the dating is wrong on Oetzi. He might have been frozen as the mammoths were in the Flood period, or he might have died since then, but certainly not before the Flood.

What's "making stuff up" is the ridiculous idea that it would take thousands of years to make a fossil. You don't know that, and there is evidence that it can happen in very short periods, for instance in caves. I'd have to dig it up but it involves the replacement of organic matter with mineral matter in a matter of years, not even hundreds let alone thousands.

Oetzi is one good example but there are many, many more.Sorry but the Biblical Flood never happened despite the fact that you fantasize that it did.And there are no fossils that are less than ten thousand years old and maybe no fossils less than a hundred thousand years old.The only evidence for a Biblical flood is in the imaginations of the deluded, the ignorant and the con men.

Show me a fossil that is less than thousands of years old. Yeah, sure. Of course you will. I'll just sit here and hold my breath until you do Look, there countless evidence that proves without a doubt that humans have never seen a global flood. Its impossible. Literally never happened.There's no contention, its not debatable, don't even try to act like it is. So where are the fossilized native americans? I live near the Cahokia Mounds. There were hundred of thousands of native americans living here about 1000 years ago. Not one single fossil of them has ever been found.You know why? Because its impossible.Fossilization simply takes longer than that.Like I said, the fact that you're willing to lie about it proves to me that even you don't believe your own bullshit. You're just acting like you do to save face. But you know its crap, you really do.

Thank you for the recital of the JAR Creed.

Sigh. I'll try to find that example. But you do understand that a few "thousands" is sufficient to fossilize the remains from the Flood, right? Yes, please do that. I've never seen such evidence, it doesn't exist, it's a figment of the modern imagination, while the evidence FOR such a Flood is EVERYWHERE. My, we seem to have quite a few sages or seers around here, who are absolutely certain about things they couldn't possibly be certain about. I think that's called, oh yes, ....bigotry. Um, dear CS, think for half a minute. Fossilization does take special conditions, the very conditions that would have been provided in a worldwide Flood, the rapid burial in wet sediments under great pressure for instance. On the other hand normal burial creates the conditions for decay and eventual dissolution of body parts, including bones. Yup, a seer, a sage, a psychic yet. ================================================

​

ABE: Here's some evidence for you:

​

It's about CONDITIONS, not time.

​

This one gives some examples of "petrification," meaning the substitution of mineral matter for organic matter, that were observed to occur in short periods of time.

​

And here's another page on the subject: see boot example

​

================================================Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shorted lines of "=".

Still more misrepresentation and unsupported assertions I see.Maybe for once you might produce some evidence to support your delusions?

I seriously don't think you have a handle on just how many fossils there are in the Karroo formation.

quote:

---

Whitcomb and Morris cite with approval a paleontologist who estimates that the Karroo Formation of southern Africa is believed to contain 800 billion fossil vertebrates with an average size of the fox.38 There are 126 billion acres on the surface of the earth. Only 30 percent of this area is land, giving a land area of 38 billion acres. If 800 billion animals were spread over the 38 billion available acres, there would be 21 animals with an average size of a fox, per acre, from this deposit alone.
http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com/...or+a+Global+Flood

---

That is just ONE DEPOSIT, and it requires 21 animals the size of a fox per acre across the whole globe just to account for one deposit. There are still thousands of other deposits that still need fossils. Obviously, we have. We have done the math. It doesn't add up.

That's SO funny, jar, since the post of yours I was answering is a perfect example of flat out assertion without a shred of evidence.And your original post on Oetzi, yes I remember it well, had a long list of similar assertions about the find, ALSO without a shred of actual evidence -- with the exception of one detail as I recall, the grass in the shoes -- which I pointed out on that thread.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I believe your post is misleading. As I understand it, the fossils in the Karoo are mostly if not exclusively of aquatic creatures, not land creatures, so that the land estimates given by Morton are irrelevant.

Actually Faith you are simply lying as usual. You did not point out that there was no evidence in the Oetzi thread, you simply as usual pulled the playground "Nah, nah, nah, I'm not listening" card. You said that you were not going to accept the evidence because it refuted your beliefs and then ran away.For new folk, the thread is Looking for the Super-Genome. -And it ain't found.But that is the same thing you always do. It's pitiful how weak, worthless and dishonest the faith you try to market is.

Thank you for finding the thread. I believe the facts are clear enough to anyone who will read it honestly.