Evidence for an Old Earth

Life didn't survive it, well except for sea life that is.
Huh? Land life survived somehow, right? And how would sea life survive a flood that held enough sediment to deposit several kilometers of geologic column? That would be a Mud, not a flood.
Also, I assume logically thinking here that the humans being smart would swim to the top of the flood waters trying to stay alive, the animals who can't swim like dinosaurs (just the weight of some land dinosaurs makes that problem), or smaller animals that can't do much of anything would be at the bottom.
Ah, yes, the fleeing theory. What about the humans who couldn't swim? How about the dinosaurs that could? Why do we never find human bones below dinosaurs? Surely some human must have fallen behind a dinosaur?
And (this is the real clincher) why don't we find fossil grasses with dinosaur bones? Are you telling me that grass and other modern plants picked up their roots and ran ahead of the flood? Ludicrous!Land life's only "life-line" (pun not intended) was the Ark. How would it survive a 40 day rapid Flood? You might not understand how fast this Flood happened. I'm telling you that indefinatly some Sea Life would have survived, I wasn't there I don't know how much of it survived.
"What about the humans who couldn't swim? How about the dinosaurs that could? Why do we never find human bones below dinosaurs? Surely some human must have fallen behind a dinosaur? "
I think humans would have gone to higher ground if possible, think, think, think, yes they would have been able to go higher in most cases. But you're saying the ones that couldn't swim why haven't we found any yet... I ask you the same of the "missing links". No answer yet, on both accounts."And (this is the real clincher) why don't we find fossil grasses with dinosaur bones? Are you telling me that grass and other modern plants picked up their roots and ran ahead of the flood? Ludicrous! "I would suspect the grasses to be obliterated rapidly.And the cypress trees, having knees, also had feet and ran to higher ground, while the poor footless seed ferns in the same swamp drowned and went extinct.
I don't think so.
The fossil record can't be massaged enough to look like that's what happened, and geologists had already figured that out by 1830. Try a newer argument - this one won't swim.Enough with the Sarcastic remarks, they are pointless. If the Flood happened ( and I believe it did ) the Bible says that the Earth flooded for 150 days, It rained for 40. For 150 days life was drained from the earth through the Flood, I think that the force of the Flood alone could and did wipe out most of the plant life.------------------
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (emphasis added) -- Charles Darwin

prophecyexclaimed, Then please pay attention to your own argument. Your own cite alludes to where sites display all stratigraphic units of the geologic column, & that they are not continuous, but show gaps. Since the units represent large periods of time, & a lot is missing from each unit, then by definition there are "many" large time gaps that are not represented by periods of deposition.You are asserting that the gaps in the geologic column are due to the flood. They can't be because a global flood would create a single erosional gap in the geologic column. This is not observed, instead there are multiple gaps in otherwise continuously deposited strata. This is consistent with periods of deposition interupted by periods of erosion. These deposits generally come with their own flora & fauna , quite often flipping between terrestrial & marine environments, which is in it's turn consistent with an old earth & evolution, not special creation & a global flood.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

But the Ark isn't big enough to support as much life as the bible says, plus food, plus drinkable water, plus a compliment of human caretakers. Even juveniles. And two of every population is far too few to resuccitate an entire population, even if they're God's own "perfect" specimens.I mean, let's say you just let the animals off the ark. You've got two antelopes and two lions. What are the lions going to eat? An antelope? If your population of antelopes consists of only one mated pair, and then one of them is killed, guess what happens to your antelopes?So the Ark story doesn't hold water (or keep it out, as the case may be.) Here's another one - why didn't they get into boats and survive like Noah? I think you misunderstand our objections. Plants have as much of an evolutionary history as animals, with primitive ferns towards the beginning and more modern angiosperms much, much later. (At least, that's the evolutionary interpretation of the plant fossil record.)But we never find modern grass with dinosaurs. Never ever. And look outside - grasses do pretty well. There's grass all over the place. So, if the reason "primitive" animals are at the bottom of the geologic record is because they can't outrun the rising flood waters, then surely modern angiosperms should be all the way at the bottom? Plants can't outrun anything. But what we find is that angiosperms are largely at the top of the fossil record - well above dinosaurs. How did they get there, except by an explanation that modern angiosperms evolved later than dionsaurs - and the geologic column represents a record of millions of years? No, they're quite point-ful. You're just missing the point. The question isn't "did the flood kill plants?" but rather "if the flood killed everything at once, why aren't all types of plants distributed evenly throughout the fossil record? Why do more advanced plants appear solely at the top of the geologic column?

Why, then, is pollen from grasses found only in Cenozoic sediments - nearly everywhere you look in Cenozoic sediments - and never, ever, not once in Jurassic or Devonian ones? Why does coal from the Pennsylvanian, though made up almost entirely of plant matter, have not even a trace of a fossil of grass or of any other angiosperm ("flowering plant")? Was there some force that kept grass pollen suspended in the atmosphere until all the trilobites and dinosaurs and ammonites had been buried?
Believe what you like, but at least look at what you're arguing against.
And learn to use the "quote" function: {qs}what you are quoting{/qs}, only with square brackets instead of curly ones. It makes reading posts a lot easier.

prophecyexclaimed, So why do we find sessile molluscs in similar aged sediments as humans? Brachiopods? They both have shells & should plummet straight to the bottom. They can't up sticks & run. Why do we find small animals in the same aged deposits as Hominids? Bacteria should be the last organisms to drop out of suspension, yet are found first! The "small" animals you mention are found from the Permian to THE PRESENT!If you think Dinosauria & small animals are at the bottom of the geologic column, think again. The earliest life appeared in sediments ~3.5 billion years ago, the earliest Dinosaurs appeared in the late Triassic, about 220 million years ago. In fact, multicellular life didn't become diverse until the Cambrian, 543 million years ago. That is, 5/6ths of the geologic column saw little other than single celled, & simple multicellular organisms, whilst true complex animal body plans appeared relatively recently in the last 6th, aren't most of them supposed to be at the bottom?. According to you the Precambrian should be teeming with complex life, yet it isn't.You are falsified on two counts. Organisms that should be at the bottom aren't, organisms that shouldn't be at the top, are.I'd like to go into more detail with more examples, but am a little stretched for time. Trust me, the situation gets even more ridiculous when we start looking at the plant fossils. They can't run anywhere, yet display the same pattern of appearance, extinction, & radiation as animals. Fully consistent with an old earth & evolution, in direct contradiction of a biblical flood.[added by edit] If you click on my avatar, you'll get a full ,sized image of another "small" animal, Acanthostega gunnari, one that lived in the late Devonian, ~350 mya, it could swim, obviously, represents a transition between fish & tetrapods, yet according to you should be contemporaneous with Hominid fossils found much higher in the geologic column. Why isn't it?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-12-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 08-12-2003]

Hi, Proph!Thank you for making a greater effort, but your posts are still problematic. There's no demarcation between your text and the text you're replying to. You don't say what message you're replying to, or even who.There is no requirement for good grammar or spelling or writing, though certainly those are valuable qualities in promoting a point of view, but I insist that you make it possible for people to tell which is your text and which is someone else's, and who the someone else is. This is not an anarchic chat room but a serious debate site. Contributors here should not only be able to maintain continuity and focus in a discussion, but also be able to maintain an acceptable level of intelligibility.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

I am only 14 so I am learning

---

thats Great too hear. I do Know for a Fact this is a Hard age. this is the age I became an Evolutionist and dropped Christianity from my life(catholic). I know its hard to disregard what your Parents have told you but I suspect the Further you look the More you will see Evolution.
I am now 22(only I am young) and I am in collage as a Science student. My goal is to be a paleontologist(study of Prehistoric life). we will see. Unlike Others you have time to Open your Mind. and Learn. I did and I hope you will also

quote:

---

I said:
"Believe me If I could Disprove Evolution I and every other Evolutionist would do it in a heart beat. "

​

He responds:
Of course not your brainwashed.

---

No my Friend your Brainwashed by People of your Faith. Your Parents Believe so you do. this is not a way to go. be your own Person do Research(more). I admit I was 15 When I told my Parents I am not a christen anymore. they didn't take it well at first but now they are fine with it.

quote:

---

I said:
"Almost All things in Creationist sites(against evolution) have been proven wrong. yet they never EVER Update. wonder why....... search the web I am sure you can easily find Answers that prove them wrong on everything they say. "

​

He responds:
You need back-up, come on give me some examples?

---

this is Your Research. I already have done mine. I was your age as a matter of fact when I did it. you browse old topics on this board I do suspect you will find Most of your answers. Besides I am not exactly sure what you want me to answerI have One more question for you however.
Why can I not find Modern animals with Dinosaur fossils?
I have been on digs and I have yet to find any....... explain this[This message has been edited by DC85, 08-12-2003][This message has been edited by DC85, 08-12-2003]

"But the Ark isn't big enough to support as much life as the bible says, plus food, plus drinkable water, plus a compliment of human caretakers. Even juveniles. And two of every population is far too few to resuccitate an entire population, even if they're God's own "perfect" specimens."Crashfrog, The Arc had a lot more room after it was filled with the animals. I took a lesson on it at a chapel that was being held at the camp I was at. The guy was saying that 2 of every animal isn't what you think. I don't totally get it yet but he said that with one type of dog or wolf you would soon get all the types of dog and/or wolf. It ties somehow into Adaptation. I know that drdino.com has some info on it if your willing to do some research."I mean, let's say you just let the animals off the ark. You've got two antelopes and two lions. What are the lions going to eat? An antelope? If your population of antelopes consists of only one mated pair, and then one of them is killed, guess what happens to your antelopes?"
I do not think that God would let this happen. Also Noah was a smart guy he probably fed the animals greatly and seperated predator and prey."So the Ark story doesn't hold water (or keep it out, as the case may be.)"
No, I think it does.
No, they're quite point-ful. You're just missing the point. The question isn't "did the flood kill plants?" but rather "if the flood killed everything at once, why aren't all types of plants distributed evenly throughout the fossil record? Why do more advanced plants appear solely at the top of the geologic column?
I can't answer that but I am sure that there is something wrong with the record, or in fact there are more advanced plants at the bottom or the "geo column". Sorry if this seems "answer" insuffcient but its all I can say.------------------
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (emphasis added) -- Charles Darwin

Hi,It seems that, even by your trimming of the number of animals on the ark, there is far more than the teacher at your camp implied.Only the unclean animals were taken in pairs, and the clean animals, of which there are far more, were taken in 7 pairs of each, so there are fourteen of every clean animal and only two of every unclean animal.Genesis 7:2: of all the clean beasts thou dost take to thee seven pairs, a male and its female; and of the beasts which are not clean two, a male and its female;Also I would like to comment on this claim: This is a problem with having a conclusion before you look at the evidence. You assume that there must be something wrong with the fossil record because it negates your belief of an accurate Bible. This is not a good stance if you are seriously investigating the evidence.Here is a good exercise for you to try. Investigate the evidence for a worldwide flood 4400 years ago without referring to the Bible, can you find evidence from any other sources? This is something that I used to do when I was having doubting my commitment to Christianity, I won't tell you any specifics incase it taints your investigation.I know that you are young PE, I teach at High School and I know the capabilities of an average 14 year old, it is good that you are entering into discussions with people who have a very good knowledge of the topics that you are interested in. I would urge you to actually listen to what they are telling you and follow it up at your local library, these websites that you have mentioned, such as Dr.Dino all have their own agendas, Kent Hovind has zero credibility in scientific circles, I doubt he has any credibility in biblical studies circles as well.It is fine to read Hovind, but you should really decide things for yourself, dont take Hovind's, or anyone else's, word as being 'gospel', take on board what they are saying but ultimately it is a good idea to make up your own mind. If you find that something Hovind says sounds plausible to you, you then need to examine the reasons why it sounds plausible to see if they survive closer scrutiny.As you probably know, Hovind is a bit of a joke on the Internet and in my opinion he only has credibiltiy amongst the ignorant and psychologically damaged. But you decide for yourself if he is an expert on anything or not.Brian.

Hi Prophecy,Message 50, please.Mark

The creation theory predicts that almost all plants should be found at the bottom of the column - primitive and advanced, ALL of them mixed up together. In fact, advanced plants have NEVER been found there. If advanced plants had ever been found there, the theory of evolution would come crashing down. Instead, advanced plants are only found higher in the column, exactly as the theory of evolution predicts.A theory is no good if its predictions are the reverse of what we see before our eyes. Thinking people discard theories that can't make predictions and don't explain the facts.prophecy, you will find that creationists talk a lot about the animals when it comes to the fossil record and the flood. They don't talk much about the plants because (1) they can't explain the distribution of plant fossils, and (2) they hope no one will notice - because after all, animals are cuddly and cute, while plants are boring. (I know this for a fact because I studied Botany for one year, then dropped it for Zoology.)------------------
o--greyline--o

Thread copied to the Evidence for an Old Earth thread in the Dates and Dating forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.