The fossil record explained

[AV1611VET]

And that's supposed to be analogous to the fossilization process?

It shows that, in the fossil record, depth doesn't mean non-coexistence.

The trilobites at the bottom may have known the rexes above them.

Anyone claiming the marshmallows were in the pool before the inner tube would be wrong.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I was providing an example of fossils forming today - I am aware what sub-fossils are by the way.

Legitimate fossils take 10,000 years to be complete, according to science.

What is your point exactly? And what has it got to do with the OP?

My point is a technical one.

It's a tangent, typical of such threads.

 

[Aman777]

SURE dude, must be why every creationist fails to address the points I made.

Up to the very next irrelvant, weak minded post.

I did but received back insults and arrogance spewed forth by someone who thinks he knows more than God. In the end, your knees will bow too.

 

[Aman777]

Gee, must have missed something in the scientific literature lately. And I read a lot scientific literature on a daily bases, expecially in biology, geology, paleontology and genetics. Let's leave it at that I am very well informed about the current state of affairs in those scientific disciplines.

I can tell you that in science there are no such recently discovered facts.

False, as the following shows. Two years ago Science announced that all life on Earth came from LUCA, the last universal common ancestor who appeared in water some 3.8 Billion years ago. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life... God told us the SAME exact thing more than THREE THOUSAND years ago in Genesis One.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

Now, it's your time to tell us HOW this happened since NO man of the time could have possibly known and written this scientific Truth. Amen?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Thank you for making my point: There are no Dodo fossils, only subfossils.

Ive already corrected him upon that, over 4 to 6 months ago, and they even admit that the sub-fossils are not really fossils at all. Is he still trying that false claim???

That’s all evolutionists do is try to repeat false information.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Thank you for making my point: There are no Dodo fossils, only subfossils.

Also let us be clear WHY they call them subfossils.

The main reason is age, most date to only a few thousand years, but the rest of the story is telling in the extreme.

“The main importance of these vertebrate subfossil (versus fully fossilized) remains is that they contain organic material, which can be used for radiocarbon dating or the extraction and sequencing of DNA, protein, or other biomolecules.”

Best save this quote as they’ll be changing it when they realize it contradicts their very own claims of age....

So in reality since even full fossils contain original organic matter, I concur with their correct assessment of age which is a mere few thousands of years for all dinosaurs....

Even if they won’t accept the dating they have gotten for those fossils, yet claim they can be dated by carbon 14 methods because they still contain organic material.

Do you see their contradictory double-talk and avoidance....

 

[46AND2]

Also let us be clear WHY they call them subfossils.

They main reason is age, most date to only a few thousand years, but the rest of the story is telling in the extreme.

“The main importance of these vertebrate subfossil (versus fully fossilized) remains is that they contain organic material, which can be used for radiocarbon dating or the extraction and sequencing of DNA, protein, or other biomolecules.”

Best save this quote as they’ll be changing it when they realize it contradicts their very own claims of age....

So in reality since even full fossils contain original organic matter, I concur with their correct assessment of age which is a mere few thousands of years for all dinosaurs....

Even if they won’t accept the dating they have gotten for those fossils, yet claim they can be dated by carbon 14 methods because they still contain organic material.

Do you see their double-talk and avoidance....

But don't you see, if the earth is only 6000 years old, ALL FOSSILS whether sub fossils of only a few thousand years old or actual fossils should contain NEARLY THE SAME concentration of radiocarbon.

But they don't. Subfossils contain MUCH more than the trace amounts that are supposedly found in dinosaur fossils.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But don't you see, if the earth is only 6000 years old, ALL FOSSILS whether sub fossils of only a few thousand years old or actual fossils should contain NEARLY THE SAME concentration of radiocarbon.

But they don't. Subfossils contain MUCH more than the trace amounts that are supposedly found in dinosaur fossils.

Because the subfossils, dodo birds, etc, did not die in the flood, which as we know exposure to sea water changes carbon absorption. And still they date to only 40,000 years. So your claims of drastically less trace amounts just doesn’t jive with the actual amounts found in them....

Correct for flood exposure and...... You get dates to just before the creation of man, the fifth destruction. The problem is you all keep trying to tie dinosaurs into Noah’s flood, which is separate ate from the floods that killed most life in the five previous destructions.

 

[46AND2]

Because the subfossils, dodo birds, etc, did not die in the flood, which as we know exposure to sea water changes carbon absorption. And still they date to only 40,000 years. So your claims of drastically less trace amounts just doesn’t jive with the actual amounts found in them....

Correct for flood exposure and......

Sea water affects carbon absorption while animals are ALIVE, i.e. marine life. It does not similarly affect terrestrial animals after their death. Sorry, try again.

 

[46AND2]

Because the subfossils, dodo birds, etc, did not die in the flood, which as we know exposure to sea water changes carbon absorption. And still they date to only 40,000 years. So your claims of drastically less trace amounts just doesn’t jive with the actual amounts found in them....

Correct for flood exposure and...... You get dates to just before the creation of man, the fifth destruction. The problem is you all keep trying to tie dinosaurs into Noah’s flood, which is separate ate from the floods that killed most life in the five previous destructions.

Furthermore, sea water makes marine life appear older by increasing the concentration of C12, NOT dissipating C14 (radiocarbon). Therefore, even in your scenario, a dodo which died after the flood, say 3000 years ago, should still contain similar quantities of C14 as a dinosaur which died in the flood 1500ish years earlier. But they are vastly different.

 

[46AND2]

Because the subfossils, dodo birds, etc, did not die in the flood, which as we know exposure to sea water changes carbon absorption. And still they date to only 40,000 years. So your claims of drastically less trace amounts just doesn’t jive with the actual amounts found in them....

Correct for flood exposure and...... You get dates to just before the creation of man, the fifth destruction. The problem is you all keep trying to tie dinosaurs into Noah’s flood, which is separate ate from the floods that killed most life in the five previous destructions.

Your scenario also completely ignores organic material which dates to, say, 15,000 years. Clearly, it has to be old enough to have gone through the flood, yet, the flood exposure did not reduce it's carbon content to that of your claimed 40k for dinosaurs. Why is that?

 

[Jimmy D]

Ive already corrected him upon that, over 4 to 6 months ago, and they even admit that the sub-fossils are not really fossils at all. Is he still trying that false claim???

That’s all evolutionists do is try to repeat false information.

I urge anyone who doubts a forum member could lie so easily and blatantly to check the link I posted earlier...

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/another-flood-question.8034353/page-30#post-71989827

A long post, with various citations, explaining what sub fossils are with multiple examples and correcting Justatruthseekers ridiculous claims that fossils no longer form.

The 10 commandments mean nothing to these hypocrites.

 

[AV1611VET]

I urge anyone who doubts a forum member could lie so easily and blatantly to check the link I posted earlier...

The 10 commandments mean nothing to these hypocrites.

Would Justa, in your opinion, fail a polygraph test?

Would sodium pentothal, administered to your "hypocrites," support your accusation?

 

[46AND2]

Would Justa, in your opinion, fail a polygraph test?

Would sodium pentothal, administered to your "hypocrites," support your accusation?

Dunno about Justa, but certain professional apologists, yes. Like Hovind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dunno about Justa, but certain professional apologists, yes. Like Hovind.

Hmmm ...

Would functional magnetic resonance imaging expose Justa as lying?

 

[46AND2]

Hmmm ...

Would functional magnetic resonance imaging expose Justa as lying?

What does an MRI have to do with lying?

 

[AV1611VET]

What does an MRI have to do with lying?

Ask the folks at No Lie MRI.

But better yet, try and see the point I'm making.

It'll save a lot of chit chat.

 

[46AND2]

Ask the folks at No Lie MRI.

But better yet, try and see the point I'm making.

It'll save a lot of chit chat.

I already know the point you're making. We've had this discussion before. Lying implies intent to deceive. I fully agree. That's why I said I don't know about Justa; I haven't seen enough to be convinced of intent. I have, however, been convinced of intent by several professional apologists.

 

[AV1611VET]

I already know the point you're making. We've had this discussion before. Lying implies intent. I fully agree. That's why I said I don't know about Justa; I haven't seen enough to be convinced of intent. I have, however, been convinced of intent by several professional apologists.

Well, for the record, it was Justa that Jimmy put on the stand and waved the Ten Commandments at.

He even invoked "hypocrisy" in his post:

The 10 commandments mean nothing to these hypocrites.

 

[46AND2]

Well, for the record, it was Justa that Jimmy put on the stand and waved the Ten Commandments at.

He even invoked "hypocrisy" in his post:

I don't know if Jimmy has good reason to accuse him of that...but I do know that it is not unprecedented. I don't think all creationists lie for Jesus, but some certainly do; heck, some even cop to it.