Oh please, the dying in a localized flood is such an old tired excuse - since that same excuse is used for almost every single fossil they find. And then we should have no problems with finding animals in the process of fossilization, since in the last 6,000 years I am sure we have had many localized floods. But then I asked for an example and you failed to give any because none exist. As I said - if it happened that way then, there should be no problem with it happening that way now........... And since tar pits are few and far between........
You just don't want to admit it must happen by cataclysmic events. Gradually covered also doesn't cover it.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord/fossilization/fossilization.htm
"The remains of an organism that survive natural biological and physical processes must then become quickly buried by sediments... Catastrophic burial with a rapid influx of sediment is necessary to preserve delicate complete animals such as crinoids or starfish."
So according to your claim we should be able to dig down a few feet in the ocean and find evidence of fossilization occurring. Since if dying on the seabead and being covered by slow sediment drift is your explanation - it should suffice today as well. The sad part is you can find not one example that bears out this hypothesis. But you'll claim it as fact anyways.
Then show me any animals in the last 6,000 years undergoing fossilization? If it happened as you claim that way then - it should be happening that way today.
No, you miss the point. Go and dig in any riverbed and you will find NO animal remains. You know this as well as I do. I asked for any showing signs the fossilization process is beginning, I did not ask you to show me fossilized animals. You will find none - absolutely zero.
Because bunny's did not exist then. Don't try to put your incorrect interpretation of scripture off onto me.
And the earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste. And darkness {became} upon.....
Just because you also want to use an incorrect interpretation to prove young earth believers wrong, does not make the interpretation correct.
Hayah does not mean "was" or the condition it existed in. It means to become, or the condition it ended up in.
hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be
The earth was already flourishing with life prior to man. Life that has went extinct in several eras, after which all new forms of life arose. Then the last catastrophe struck.
In the oldest manuscripts there is a mark of a pause between the first and second verse. It may be as science tells us, that this globe existed millions of years ago; that it has been the habitation of numerous and varied races of animated beings; and that it has undergone many great destructions and creations before it was brought into its present state: none of these views are in the least discordant with the statement of the inspired historian, that “in beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
In twenty places in this chapter the verb “was” is used as the equivalent to “became”. The true meaning of the Hebrew word
"hayah". "to fall out, come to pass, become, be"
The Earth "became" desolate and waste, (tohu wa bohu - used nowhere else together in the Bible except this verse and two other places, and always when used elsewhere point to a once flourishing condition that was then laid waste - Gen 1:2; Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23) and darkness overspread the Earth. At this time (man) did not exist prior, nor any of the current animals found with skeletons of modern man, except in a few rare cases as in one or two classes of reptiles and fish that survived this worldwide cataclysm, and the untold number before, told of before science had ever thought of such a thing as possible.
Comet, meteor? Who knows? It is quite accurate when interpreted properly. After unknown periods of time another act of creation occurred, this time with a notable exception, one worth bothering to describe in more detail, unlike any others that may have occurred previously. But then a new creation happened, the waters were separated from the waters (evaporation). "Let there be light...divided the light from the darkness". In Hebrew literally: " divided between the light and between darkness." Where all had previously been darkness due to the destruction, the addition of heat began separating the clouds. The events in the entire chapter are described as if one's viewpoint is from the earth.
It must be noted that the word 'ohr is not the same word used in verse 14 signifying "lights," or "luminaries," ma-'ohr; rather, it signifies "heat." the effect, which immediately followed is described in the name Day, which in Hebrew signifies "warmth."
So heat began penetrating into the depths after God acted, separating the clouds, letting light into the depths, the clouds had been so low as to contact the Earth itself. But heat allowed evaporation and the waters above were separated from the waters below and dry land appeared.
The earth was already flourishing with life prior to man. Life that has went extinct in several eras, after which all new forms of life arose. Then the last catastrophe struck.
In the oldest manuscripts there is a mark of a pause between the first and second verse. It may be as science tells us, that this globe existed millions of years ago; that it has been the habitation of numerous and varied races of animated beings; and that it has undergone many great destructions and creations before it was brought into its present state: none of these views are in the least discordant with the statement of the inspired historian, that “in beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
In twenty places in this chapter the verb “was” is used as the equivalent to “became”. The true meaning of the Hebrew word
"hayah". "to fall out, come to pass, become, be"
The Earth "became" desolate and waste, (tohu wa bohu - used nowhere else together in the Bible except this verse and two other places, and always when used elsewhere point to a once flourishing condition that was then laid waste - Gen 1:2; Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23) and darkness overspread the Earth. At this time (man) did not exist prior, nor any of the current animals found with skeletons of modern man, except in a few rare cases as in one or two classes of reptiles and fish that survived this worldwide cataclysm, and the untold number before, told of before science had ever thought of such a thing as possible.
Comet, meteor? Who knows? It is quite accurate when interpreted properly. After unknown periods of time another act of creation occurred, this time with a notable exception, one worth bothering to describe in more detail, unlike any others that may have occurred previously. But then a new creation happened, the waters were separated from the waters (evaporation). "Let there be light...divided the light from the darkness". In Hebrew literally: " divided between the light and between darkness." Where all had previously been darkness due to the destruction, the addition of heat began separating the clouds. The events in the entire chapter are described as if one's viewpoint is from the earth.
It must be noted that the word 'ohr is not the same word used in verse 14 signifying "lights," or "luminaries," ma-'ohr; rather, it signifies "heat." the effect, which immediately followed is described in the name Day, which in Hebrew signifies "warmth."
So heat began penetrating into the depths after God acted, separating the clouds, letting light into the depths, the clouds had been so low as to contact the Earth itself. But heat allowed evaporation and the waters above were separated from the waters below and dry land appeared.
Every past form of life sprang from nowhere, lived for a time, different breeds of that kind prospering, then went extinct due to cataclysmic actions. In its place all new life once again sprang up, to again repeat the cycle. The Bible just affirms this, when it told you of the earth becoming desolate and waste, and the darkness that became upon it, encompassing it around. Hence the dinosaurs died out. It then described the "sixth" such event, when man himself was created.
This is the confusion between the two chapters of genesis. The animals created in the 5th creation were the dinosaurs - they went extinct. The animals created in the sixth creation along with man were mammals.
There have been 5 - count them, 5 major extinction events. Mankind and the animals with him were created "after" this 5th extinction event, the 6th creative act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
Soon there will be a sixth destruction and a seventh and final creation in which all new forms of life will also arise - including an animal described as a lion that eats straw. 6 for the sixth creative act, 6 for mankind and 6 for the sixth destruction brought about by Satan. Only after this world is destroyed for the sixth time will the seventh and final creation begin again. The flood does not count in this destructive sequence because all of the animals that were alive before it - were brought through it. No new creative acts were required to repopulate the earth. The animals then alive were able to repopulate the earth, unlike the other times when all new life had to be created.
First you incorrectly assume I believe the dinosaurs died out in Noah's Flood - which they did not. They died out in the flood that made the earth desolate and waste. Because Young Earth believers also misinterpret scripture, they also can not make their beliefs of what they think scripture says fit reality. All because they refuse to translate correctly the second word of the second verse of the Bible - and just like you who also refuses to correct their interpretation and misuse of that word, because if you used the proper meaning your argument becomes void and meaningless. But then you have never bothered to research the original words to even see if their interpretation was correct to begin with - because such would not fit into your tiny little box and you would have nothing to argue against anymore.
I believe the earth is ancient, just as the Bible claims it is ancient. Man is recent - not the earth or life. But you have nothing to argue against a correct interpretation of the Hebrew Hayah, and so will refuse to consider it.
