Jellyfish fossil imprints, turtles, giraffes,...

[Innerfire89]

This is point out a few thing that make macro evolution and old earth look like nonsense.

Jellyfish fossil imprints.
Millions of years ago jellyfish washed up on shore, because the soil was so full of micro organisms it was gooey and preserved the imprints. I don't buy it! Jellyfish that a almost nothing to begin with, rot into nothing within a day at most if not just swept back into the ocean. They weigh nothing. And am I supposed to believe that if the earth exited millions of years ago, that anyone could know anything about what it was like? Try a world wide flood caused the jellies to be covered with mud.

Turtles, how did they evolve to have shells? Shells that protect them from predators? But hey, what's the rush, take a couple million years, you're only be hunted to extinction!

Giraffes.
They have a special flap in the arteries of thier neck to reduce the blood flow to their brains when they bend down. If they didn't, then they would die of a massive brain hemorrhage.

Living fossils.
Some are supposed to be tens of millions of years old, but haven't evolved into something else.

Dino egg fossils.
Found in the higher parts of the Grand canyon, the fossilized eggs just sat there all safe and cozy for millions? Billions of years?

Blood clotting.
Anyone use blood thinners, a slight touch and there's a new bruise, a small cut can't stop bleeding on it's own. Imagine if your blood didn't clot at all, you couldn't survive a day. But the ability for blood to clot took a long, long time to work itself out.

I won't even get into how the moon is moving away from the earth and the effects it would have caused trillions of years ago.

This thread is mostly satirical, but still truthful, look these things up for yourselves to see just how laughable secular science is.

 

[Job 33:6]

If anything, these are examples of why the earth is old.

Jellyfish trace fossils for example. Or any trace fossil/footprint for that matter.

If something steps in soft mud, and soil or other mud fills in that print, then you have a buried print, stuck in mud. And that print wont go away anytime soon, not unless someone digs it up or if wind or water erodes it away or something. It will just sit where it is indefinitely.

A global flood on the other hand, calls for extreme 800 degree temperatures to metamorphose rock. It calls for massive acid erosion of thousands of feet of super dense rocks like quartzite. Flood believers think the grand canyon was carved out by acidic waters at extraordinarily high temperatures. But also, somehow there were ice ages and whooly mammoths walking around as well.

Anyway, why would a jelly fish print be in mud, if highly dense rocks are undergoing metamorphism (which requires hundred+ degree temperatures and melting of rock), and highly dense metamorphic rocks are being burned away by acidic water? Why would jellyfish even exist at all in such a chaotic environment?

Same with dinosaur eggs. Why are dinosaurs mating in the midst of a global flood of super hot temperatures and acidic flood waters? Mating requires food consumption, nest building, brooding, incubating eggs etc. Mating is something animals do when they are living casual lives, not when they are trying to survive an insane flood of acidic water and 800 degree temperatures.

Whereas with an old earth, yes, a lot more time has passed, but the egg shells are fossilized, and minerals have precipitated throughout them. The eggs have essentially become rocks, and rocks last a really long time. Once a fossil is fossilized, its not difficult to understand how it could last a long time, just as long as any other regular rock could.

 

[Job 33:6]

And regarding turtles and how they evolved shells...

Here is actually a proto-turtle that only has half a shell from the triassic. Turtles, as far as we know according to this proto turtle fossil, likely started out with only half a shell with ribs along the top of their bodies.

Odontochelys - Wikipedia

 

[Job 33:6]

And regarding turtles and how they evolved shells...

Here is actually a proto-turtle that only has half a shell from the triassic. Turtles, as far as we know according to this proto turtle fossil, likely started out with only half a shell with ribs along the top of their bodies.

Odontochelys - Wikipedia

 

[Job 33:6]

In fact, there are actually several turtle transitional fossils ranging from no shell, to partial shell, to full shell.

Milleretta - Wikipedia

Eunotosaurus - Wikipedia

Odontochelys - Wikipedia

Proganochelys - Wikipedia

 

[Job 33:6]

In fact, there are actually several turtle transitional fossils ranging from no shell, to partial shell, to full shell.

Milleretta - Wikipedia

Eunotosaurus - Wikipedia

Odontochelys - Wikipedia

Proganochelys - Wikipedia

Evidence that the plastron evolved before the carapace, as indicated by the lack of carapace in Odontochelys semitestacea, is often viewed as an indication of the aquatic origin of turtles.[1] The fossil was found in marine deposits, further supporting that the primitive turtle frequented shallow marine water. Since it is generally accepted that the shell arose to provide protection against predators, the semi-aquatic nature of turtles and the development of the plastron complement each other. Ancestral turtles with protection on their underside are more protected from predators that attack from below.[4] Based on this interpretation, the development of the carapace was likely driven in a land animal.

 

[Job 33:6]

Living fossils.
Some are supposed to be tens of millions of years old, but haven't evolved into something else.

And for this point, there really is no such thing as a true, living fossil. The most popular example of a living fossil is the coelacanth. But if morphologically, species of the order coelacanthiforms from the devonian, are in fact morphologically different from the species alive today. And if you would like, I could pull up research for both to compare and contrast.

A newly recognized fossil coelacanth highlights the early morphological diversification of the clade

Here is research talking about morphological differences between groups of devonian ceolacanthiformes and those of the carboniferous. Even the most stable or slowly evolving life forms, still differ over geologic time in the succession. And you wouldnt find fossils of ceolacanthiforms from today, back then, nor would you find carboniferous ceolacanthiforms in the devonian or vise versa.

 

[Job 33:6]

Which brings up another good point ^. If the planet were only 6000 years old, and evolution were not true, you would think there would be animals in the fossil record that are actually alive today. But, in reality there are not. There are no dinosaurs for example, not a single one. No burgess shale animals, no devonian tetrapodomorphs, no mammal/reptile hybrids, no proto whales, no turtles with half shells etc.

The animals of the fossil record are gone. And there is not a single example of anything in the fossil that lives today. Even crocodile ancestors were 3-4 times in size and length, shark ancestors like megalodon were like 50 feet long, they arent around either. No plesiosaurs, nothing. There is not a single fossil animal that continues to live today.

Which is bizarre if you believe the planet is only 6000 years old.

 

[Innerfire89]

A lot to cover there. To think that a world wide flood couldn't leave behind fossils doesn't make much sense, there would be evidence left behind from the initial stages.

You trust fosill records if you like, or trust mens imagines more like. Were talking old bones and impressions, many times the bones are in hundreds of pieces that are put back together to how they think they should go together, like what they did with Lucy the ape, the grind down some parts and fill in other parts to make what they consider correct.

If turtles evolved shells to survive, how did they survive to evolve shells? And how long did it take to do so?

Living fossils show natural selection to be true, but are strong evidence against macro evolution, shouldn't the colethcanth have evolved into a flying horse by now?

Dinos weren't mating in panic of the flood, they were laying eggs, something most egg laying animals do under stress.

There's accutly been claims that a few dinos still exist deep in the jungles of the Congo and the Amazon. The claims come from the uneducated natives, when shown picture of animals both modern and extinct, they pointed out extinct animals as what they saw.
And there cave drawings and hyroglifs of humans using dinos as work animals.
You're pointing out variations in animals that are alive now as if that proves something, people used to hunt giant crocodiles, now their almost impossible to find. It's like the reverse of breeding cattle or dogs.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, lets tackle one topic at a time here.

Lets start with the first statement in your post.

"A lot to cover there. To think that a world wide flood couldn't leave behind fossils doesn't make much sense, there would be evidence left behind from the initial stages."

Dinosaurs are found in mesozoic rock layers. There are precambrian as well as paleozoic layers found below them, and cenozoic layers found above them.

As we know, there are dinosaur nests, with eggs in them. Some nests even have dinosaurs laying over their eggs, in the nest.

Now...Both paleozoic and cenozoic eras have metamorphosed rock present within them. So, what you have, in a physical sense, is a nest, with eggs, somehow un-obstructed, literally in the middle of the flood.

This is why it doesn't make sense for a nest or eggs or dinosaur tracks to be there. Because its in the middle of the flood, with metamorphic features both before and after it, as well as erosional features of highly dense rock.

 

[Job 33:6]

Do you understand what I am saying here^?

 

[Job 33:6]

There's accutly been claims that a few dinos still exist deep in the jungles of the Congo and the Amazon. The claims come from the uneducated natives, when shown picture of animals both modern and extinct, they pointed out extinct animals as what they saw.

If this is going to come down to a debate over whether or not bigfoot still exists, im not sure that i could be bothered.

 

[Job 33:6]

In a literal sense, to have a dinosaur nest in the mesozoic layers with eggs in it, the flood would have to begin. If the flood were say 365 days long, some 200-300 of those days would pass before deposits of mesozoic layers even began, so you would have dinosaurs living in this flood for some 200+ days. Metamorphic rock ranging from 200-800 degrees is found both below and above the nests, so you would have these dinosaurs building nests in extraordinarily high temperatures and pressures. You have erosional surfaces of highly dense rock both above and below, which, if these were to form during the flood, you would have acid like erosion burning the dinosaurs alive. But somehow they are more occupied with building nests?

Alternatively, you could say maybe they built the nests before the flood started. Well, then you have to ask yourself about all of the paleozoic history and layers beneath that looks similar to the mesozoic history. It doesn't really make any sense.

You could propose that the eggs and nest were transported during the flood and just settled where it is. But one would have to wonder how a nest and eggs would survive 800 degree acid waters with the mother still somehow over top of the nest.

There is really no logical way to make sense of a global flood unless you literally just ignore reality.

 

[Job 33:6]

To help explain, see the following figure.

Dinosaurs can be found in the triassic, jurassic and cretaceous layers. They are not found in lower layers such as the permian or pennsylvanian or mississippian. Those layers have their own distinct animals. The devonian is strictly fish and tetrapods, and maybe other squids and things like that. The cambrian is unique as well with things like trilobites and anomalocaris. Paleocene and eocene layers at the top also have their own unique groups of animals. Horses, megafauna, recent mammals.

So, somehow the dinosaurs managed to...build nests and lay eggs and live life doing dinosaur things, really right in the middle of this flood. There are erosional surfaces and angular unconformities down there in the paleozoic near the bottom. And of course there are great erosional surfaces in the cenozoic sections as well. These are erosional surfaces that cut through thousands of feet of rock. As well as metamorphic features spanning the entire section, some developing in 200-300 hundreds of degrees of temperature (celcius).

But somehow dinosaurs are right in the middle.

But it gets worse.

There are structural deformation features both above and below the mesozoic as well, splintering faults that propogate at straight angles, indicating propogation through hard rock. Things like cataclastic deformation, clastic features indicating that these rocks were hard rocks even before the dinosaur layers were deposited. So, how could that be?

Then you have all the issues with overturned angular unconformities and their conglomerate bases.

It gets worse and worse, the more you try to reason it out.

 

[Innerfire89]

Yes, I understand rock layers are dated according to the theory, then stated as the facts that prove it.

 

[Innerfire89]

There's accutly been claims that a few dinos still exist deep in the jungles of the Congo and the Amazon. The claims come from the uneducated natives, when shown picture of animals both modern and extinct, they pointed out extinct animals as what they saw.

If this is going to come down to a debate over whether or not bigfoot still exists, im not sure that i could be bothered.

Nothing to do with Bigfoot.

 

[NobleMouse]

This is point out a few thing that make macro evolution and old earth look like nonsense.

Jellyfish fossil imprints.
Millions of years ago jellyfish washed up on shore, because the soil was so full of micro organisms it was gooey and preserved the imprints. I don't buy it! Jellyfish that a almost nothing to begin with, rot into nothing within a day at most if not just swept back into the ocean. They weigh nothing. And am I supposed to believe that if the earth exited millions of years ago, that anyone could know anything about what it was like? Try a world wide flood caused the jellies to be covered with mud.

Turtles, how did they evolve to have shells? Shells that protect them from predators? But hey, what's the rush, take a couple million years, you're only be hunted to extinction!

Giraffes.
They have a special flap in the arteries of thier neck to reduce the blood flow to their brains when they bend down. If they didn't, then they would die of a massive brain hemorrhage.

Living fossils.
Some are supposed to be tens of millions of years old, but haven't evolved into something else.

Dino egg fossils.
Found in the higher parts of the Grand canyon, the fossilized eggs just sat there all safe and cozy for millions? Billions of years?

Blood clotting.
Anyone use blood thinners, a slight touch and there's a new bruise, a small cut can't stop bleeding on it's own. Imagine if your blood didn't clot at all, you couldn't survive a day. But the ability for blood to clot took a long, long time to work itself out.

I won't even get into how the moon is moving away from the earth and the effects it would have caused trillions of years ago.

This thread is mostly satirical, but still truthful, look these things up for yourselves to see just how laughable secular science is.

Thank you for the post brother! I am in agreement with you. To add to your list of reasons to be skeptical of the claims of evolution, not least of all, is that God's word does not support it. For this reason, arguments are rarely made in support of evolution by citing scripture. In contrast, God says he created life (plants/trees on day 3, birds/sea creatures on day 5, beasts of the fields, livestock, creeping things, and people on day 6). There have been attacks on what Genesis means, but these generally fall flat is there is a large degree of support indicating it is not allegory, is is not some run-on turn of phrase that trailed along for an entire book... these were actual historical events with real people, created by God, male and female in the beginning, just as Jesus said in Matthew 19:4.

Since a secure foothold cannot really be made in favor of macro evolution from a biblical standpoint, you'll find the discussion turning then to what science purports... and not operational science mind you... the assertions made by macro evolution (molecules-to-man evolution) cannot be experimented, tested, observed, repeated... all the things you and I would consider "hard science." No one can demonstrate where one kind has ever observably evolved into a completely new kind and there are no unequivocal transitional forms within the fossil record.

Instead, we have to loosen the reins a bit on what classifies as "evidence." The theory of evolution (ToE) is very logical... isn't not that it is a fallacy designed to fool the simple-minded, but still it is built upon a series of assumptions and inferences that cannot be proven. One has to assume that small changes accumulate over time to the extent that the new life form is now no longer like the "original model"... this however, has never been observed. What is observed is that each kind produces after it's own kind with variations within the boundaries of a kind. In the end, it remains an unproven theory and one that is not supported by the word of God... so I take it with a grain of salt.

As you pointed out too, the flood of Noah's day has been modeled to be able to explain very much of what is observed in the fossil record. Most convincing is that God said it happened, but we do see evidence all over the world of a global catastrophe that fits the description found in Genesis regarding the flood.

God bless you for your faithfulness and trust in God's word regarding this highly debated topic.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, I understand rock layers are dated according to the theory, then stated as the facts that prove it.

From a logical stance, imagine you are making a cake. Maybe its your kids birthday or something. You make the lower layer, chocolate. You top that layer with perhaps a chocolate moose, then perhaps a layer of vanilla icing on top.

from a logical stance, the vanilla icing at the top of the cake, must post-date the chocolate moose beneath. Otherwise, what would the vanilla icing rest upon? You couldnt feasibly apply the vanilla icing to the top of the cake, if there were not layers already there to ice.

The same logic applies with the mesozoic rocks (chocolate moose). The dinosaurs are found in layers in the middle. They therefore must logically post date the layers beneath them, otherwise the mesozoic layers would be floating in mid air. They could never form because there was no layer beneath them to form upon. And the cenozoic layers (the vanilla icing) must have come last.

So, the rocks are dated, in a relative sense, based on logic and reason. It's more of a philosophical concept than a scientific one.

And someone could argue that God simply instantaneously created all the layers all at once. But that would negate both flood believers as well as scientists. And, honestly, its a dark road going down that path as well.

 

[Innerfire89]

To help explain, see the following figure.

Dinosaurs can be found in the triassic, jurassic and cretaceous layers. They are not found in lower layers such as the permian or pennsylvanian or mississippian. Those layers have their own distinct animals. The devonian is strictly fish and tetrapods, and maybe other squids and things like that. The cambrian is unique as well with things like trilobites and anomalocaris. Paleocene and eocene layers at the top also have their own unique groups of animals. Horses, megafauna, recent mammals.

So, somehow the dinosaurs managed to...build nests and lay eggs and live life doing dinosaur things, really right in the middle of this flood. There are erosional surfaces and angular unconformities down there in the paleozoic near the bottom. And of course there are great erosional surfaces in the cenozoic sections as well. These are erosional surfaces that cut through thousands of feet of rock. As well as metamorphic features spanning the entire section, some developing in 200-300 hundreds of degrees of temperature (celcius).

But somehow dinosaurs are right in the middle.

But it gets worse.

There are structural deformation features both above and below the mesozoic as well, splintering faults that propogate at straight angles, indicating propogation through hard rock. Things like cataclastic deformation, clastic features indicating that these rocks were hard rocks even before the dinosaur layers were deposited. So, how could that be?

Then you have all the issues with overturned angular unconformities and their conglomerate bases.

It gets worse and worse, the more you try to reason it out.

Just think about it, each layer has its own sorts of animals.

If you take a basket of apples and shake it around, the smaller apples raise to the top while the larger ones go to the bottom. A not much different from everything on earth being washed around and sinking into or being covered with mud.

 

[Job 33:6]

Just think about it, each layer has its own sorts of animals.

If you take a basket of apples and shake it around, the smaller apples raise to the top while the larger ones go to the bottom. A not much different from everything on earth being washed around and sinking into or being covered with mud.

Excellent. This is a concept that can be tested.

Now, what exactly do you consider a small apple? A bird? What do you consider a big apple? A brontosaurus?

 

[Innerfire89]

From a logical stance, imagine you are making a cake. Maybe its your kids birthday or something. You make the lower layer, chocolate. You top that layer with perhaps a chocolate moose, then perhaps a layer of vanilla icing on top.

from a logical stance, the vanilla icing at the top of the cake, must post-date the chocolate moose beneath. Otherwise, what would the vanilla icing rest upon? You couldnt feasibly apply the vanilla icing to the top of the cake, if there were not layers already there to ice.

The same logic applies with the mesozoic rocks (chocolate moose). The dinosaurs are found in layers in the middle. They therefore must logically post date the layers beneath them, otherwise the mesozoic layers would be floating in mid air. They could never form because there was no layer beneath them to form upon. And the cenozoic layers (the vanilla icing) must have come last.

So, the rocks are dated, in a relative sense, based on logic and reason. It's more of a philosophical concept than a scientific one.

And someone could argue that God simply instantaneously created all the layers all at once. But that would negate both flood believers as well as scientists. And, honestly, its a dark road going down that path as well.

It's not there's no difference in the age of the layers, but the age that they're guesses to be by interpretative baisis.