Do creationists try to find and study fossils?

Why is this a problem? Surely you know the fossils are the remains of creatures killed in the worldwide Flood?

Seen some pictures and diagrams. It's quite an impressive collection of fossils.The "evidence" that there was never a worldwide Flood is really pretty silly.Evidence FOR the Flood is everywhere -- in the mere existence of the strata, and in the prodigious numbers of fossils themselves among other things.Let me guess that the increase in mammalian features is subject to interpretation. I do think they are all wrong about the time factor and their basic assumptions about the relation of the fossils to each other, yes, of course.But ONLY I? Hardly, despite the assaults on the Bible there do remain millions who take it seriously. I'm in good company. I'm not sure why YECs don't get more involved in that aspect of the science, perhaps partly because it's been taken over by the OE people, partly because YECs don't have a huge need to study fossils since we know they are the result of the Flood? Still, I know many enjoy collecting them, and we could learn from them about the forms of life that lived before the Flood, perhaps some things about the climate of the time and so on. Perhaps mostly it's because YEC science is still too new to have an organized approach beyond simply trying to answer the OE claims.=====================================Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again, the prodigious numbers of fossils is itself evidence for the Flood and the Karoo therefore has lots of evidence for it. Quite silly? No, I'm sure they know a lot about it, but they are of course wrong about the time factor as I said. Prodigious number of fossils there. Prodigious numbers of fossils. They are mere men, Pressie, not gods. They are capable of being misled by the prevailing paradigm to wrong conclusions, they are capable if misinterpreting the evidence. I'm sorry, they do not "take the Bible seriously" if they accept the Old Earth belief and deny the Flood, evidence for which is obvious to me just about anywhere I look on this planet, and believe in evolution -- all of this contradicts the Bible. They are in fact following fallible human science and not the word of God. Oh there ARE YEC scientists, Pressie, geologists too, I've quoted a few of them here even, and YECs who read about these things have a pretty good grasp of the scientific issues involved too. The vast majority of believers in evolution don't do science either you know, but you wouldn't fault them for their mere book learning because they agree with you, take whatever the establishment tells them as gospel truth, you only fault YECs because we don't agree with you.As for "reading holy books," no, we trust in THE word of the one true God who has revealed to us things science could never find out on its own, and since establishment science denies God they can never arrive at the truth about these things, they are merely deluding themselves.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Get rid of superfluous line of "=", which was causing the page to be a bit over-wide.

Dead things. You know, creatures killed suddenly en masse, buried suddenly, in the bazillions all over the world, are really good evidence for the Flood, notwithstanding your preferred alternative klutzy explanations for them. The very idea of a "flood layer" is absolute nonsense. I'm sorry some creationists think in such terms, it's extreme foolishness. A worldwide Flood would not have left a mere "layer," it would have demolished everything, stirred up everything, scoured off continents and redeposited separated layers of sediments on them, and where it didn't form strata it would have just piled things on top of each other. The general appearance of the earth as it is right now can be explained in terms of what happened during the Flood period. The separated strata are major evidence, and so is the gargantuan number of fossils. Sudden death by the bazillions, rapid burial. Great evidence. I don't know. There's enough evidence for the Flood without having to explain that part of it. I'm sure there are YECs who CAN explain that of course, although I can't at the moment. No I mean practicing YEC geologists. I've posted on at least a couple of them. Steve Austin is one, can't remember the name of the Brit who is currently studying the Coconino layer of the Grand Canyon. What's "silly" is not believing in the one true living God and His word. Sorry, that's false. That's not taking the Bible seriously at all. Sorry. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That formation as I recall the drawings of it is a huge bed of dead things. Finding different causes for their deaths is just an exercise in hairsplitting. All those elements you mention would have been involved in the Flood period anyway, during or in its aftermath, glaciers, volcanoes etc.And there is no reason to expect that all forms of life would have to be buried in the same location, the Karoo has its own particular collection."A flood" that produces "a" flood layer is not THE Flood that covered the entire earth to enough depth for months to wash away whatever could be washed away. That's just a typical straw man. Sorry, THE Flood did not behave as any flood we've ever seen. Everything you say about what "floods" do is just a big fat straw man. THINK for a change about what a WORLDWIDE Flood of the Biblical description would do, certainly nothing like your ordinary floods.The God who made this planet certainly DOES have EVERYTHING to do with science, which unfortunately you'll probably find out one day the hard way.Christians believe in Bible inerrancy, cover to cover. That includes me and millions of others back two millennia. Those who deny any part of it cannot be called Bible believers or be said to "take the Bible seriously." Taking PART of the Bible "seriously" -- if that's even possible -- is not taking the Bible seriously.

OK. As I recall they are all or at least a majority of them are aquatic reptilian type creatures. Not that it matters. Excuse me, but how can you tell from a FOSSIL, which is the preserved remains of the HARD parts of the creature, how it died? You have no organs to help you determine that. You must be going on the environment in which it was found, yes? In which case there is nothing inconsistent with the Flood explanation, as it is generally understood to have been attended by volcanic action and followed by glaciation for instance. Also your horseshoe bends are understood to have formed as the water rapidly receded in certain areas. The likelihood that the fossils found in such Flood-related environments were killed by anything but the Flood itself is not great, but even if on the unlikely possibility they were killed by the volcano or the glacier or the rapid running water it's all still part of the Flood scenario. THE Flood involved a lot more than the rising of the water, and again to compare it to any other flood is ludicrous. I'm describing what is generally understood to have been part of the scenario of THE Flood, much of it caused as the water receded. Rivers and deltas most certainly would have been part of the aftermath, as were huge lakes. Lots and lots of beds of fossils, i.e. dead things killed in one catastrophic event and dumped and buried rapidly in that particular area though in separate beds. There is nothing inconsistent with the Flood explanation in anything you've said. You aren't making much sense here. The lack of land animal fossils in a particular location means NOTHING in relation to the Flood explanation. They would have been buried in higher deposits which could have washed away as the water receded as they clearly did over the Grand Canyon for one instance, or they got buried at some other location. Why would there be a problem for the Flood explanation with the Karoo sequence being found in southern Africa? We do believe that before the Flood there were not separated continents as there are now. What is your point? Now you've invented ANOTHER straw man. The first straw man is the comparison to itty bitty floods in your typical refusal or inability to imagine the scale of the Noachian Flood. The only gravity problem I'm seeing here is that your head is about to float away from being filled with hot air. And yours involves mere stubborn refusal to imagine the obvious. Even rivers deposit sediments in layers. It's a common phenomenon. In the Flood there would have been OCEAN ACTION too, you know, WAVES and CURRENTS -- naturally layered water, and naturally layer-producing phenomena. Sending successive deposits of separated sediments across entire continents, such as the Coconino sandstone which covers a huge swath of North America. I am. Indeed. That's because they've allowed mere fallible human imagination to replace the revelation of the God who made them. Yes, that's the current revisionist apostate "Christianity" but what I said is true, Bible believers have always been Christianity, not half-Bible believers. Who have chosen their own fallible human ponderings over the revelation of the God who made them. No but I'd like to find some and they may be out there.=======================================================================================

The usual strange failure of geological imagination. The piling of animals on top of one another is EXACTLY what the Flood would have done that NO OTHER PHENOMENON could have done. We aren't talking "ecosystems" here, we're talking the MOVING AND DEPOSITING of huge quantities of sediments and dead creatures from one place to another by ocean waves and currents. In fact it is the usual example of anti-creationists not thinking things through.

Nope, 4350 years is about right for their true age once you clear away all the cobwebs of the dating methods of false science. Quite true, and that's because the Flood killed probably billions of human beings along with all the other living things. The word "modern" is redundant, human beings are human beings. No, it's because they would have been buried in the uppermost deposits which were all washed away in the receding Flood waters. Sure I can, and with a lot more justificatiuon than you have for hand-waving away the revelation of God. Of course they can, because there is nothing in the fossils themselves to tell them how old they are, they are relying on secondary clues they are misinterpreting. Yes. I KNOW everything that contradicts it is wrong, because I KNOW it's based on the revelation of the God who made everything scientists study. But as for evidence, there is a TON of evidence for the Flood for anyone willing to take off their "science" blinders and LOOK.

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.

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.

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 "=".

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.