Flood Geology

[AV1611VET]

Is this hijack or the topic

Would you know it if it was?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where did all those fossils come from?

A replenished earth.

There are trillions of them.

Either that, or there are 40 million, per the Smithsonian Institute.

But you're free to move that decimal place to force-fit your models and make them agree with other disciplines of science.

It might take you a few tries to get everything to line up (geology, dendrochronology, ice core dating, etc.), but with the aid of computers programmed to assist you, I'm sure you can do it.

Good question: Of these trillions [sic] of fossils, how many of them are COMPLETE plants and animals?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Good question: Of these trillions [sic] of fossils, how many of them are COMPLETE plants and animals?

That depends how you define complete. A better question: what is the relevance of your "good" question?

 

[AV1611VET]

That depends how you define complete.

-- Okie doke! LOL

A better question: what is the relevance of your "good" question?

Here's a couple more good ones:

1. Of these trillions [sic] of fossils, how many of them are tools and other man-made implements?
2. Can one human produce 206 fossils?

 

[AV1611VET]

That depends how you define complete.

Is this a reference to Sue? a T. Rex with 250 of approximately 380 total bones found?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Either that, or there are 40 million, per the Smithsonian Institute.

But you're free to move that decimal place to force-fit your models and make them agree with other disciplines of science.

No, trillions of fossils. My source for the original statement was the excellent book, The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth. Another source is The Ark Encounter Sits on a Foundation Made of Trillions of Fossils which documents there are trillions of fossils just under the Ark Encounter.

It might take you a few tries to get everything to line up (geology, dendrochronology, ice core dating, etc.), but with the aid of computers programmed to assist you, I'm sure you can do it.

Uh no, its not that hard to do. The basic order of the layers had been worked out by creationists in the 19th century. Since then we have found dozens of ways to measure the actual age of rocks, and find a high degree of accurate correlation with the order that had been known for years.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Is this a reference to Sue? a T. Rex with 250 of approximately 380 total bones found?

No, it's asking what you think should be included in a complete fossil. Does it need to include internal organs? Skin? For a plant, does it need stem, roots etc?

When you tell us, please explain why you think your chosen level of completeness is relevant.

 

[driewerf]

That's what geologists do ON PAPER, and it makes them look good; but they're wrong.

Accusing an entire science of being fraudulent, "for looking good".
Can we add all astronomers, population geneticists, archaeologists, glaciologists in the bench of the accused too?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

-- Okie doke! LOL

Here's a couple more good ones:

1. Of these trillions [sic] of fossils, how many of them are tools and other man-made implements?
2. Can one human produce 206 fossils?

You haven't answered my question. Why do you think your "good question" is relevant?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't use a calculator to work out the age of the earth.

I use a calculator to work out how long the earth has been in existence.

As far as the earth's age is concerned, it is as old as God willed it when He created it.

(You still don't understand embedded age, do you?)

That sounds like gibberish to me.

I am well aware of the concept of apparent age, in which some people claim the Earth was created to look like it had been around millions of years when it was created. That is the omphalos argument which I address in the OP.

You have vocally disapproved of the omphalos argument. You have repeatedly argued that most of the fossils were from the flood (and other Old Testament events) and that they were specifically rearranged by God after the flood. That is a very unusual argument. If you were to stand firm on it, I will address it further, but I see no need to address an argument in which the number of people known to currently support that argument is equal to zero. For you seem to have abandoned it.

So you seem to have abandoned both omphalos and rearranged-junk-from-the-flood-ism. Now you seem to say the earth was created millions of years ago in 4004 BC. That is simply gibberish. It violates basic math.

I may need to revive my old poem that explains that 2 + 2 cannot equal 10.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, trillions of fossils. My source for the original statement was the excellent book, The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth. Another source is The Ark Encounter Sits on a Foundation Made of Trillions of Fossils which documents there are trillions of fossils just under the Ark Encounter.

I wonder how many fossils the Smithsonian Institute sits atop?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's asking what you think should be included in a complete fossil.

Who cares what "I" think.

Is Sue considered a complete fossil, or isn't she?

How many fossils can my skeleton produce, with its 206 bones?

 

[AV1611VET]

Accusing an entire science of being fraudulent, "for looking good".

All fraudulence is wrong, but not all wrong is fraudulent.

Do you know the difference?

Can we add all astronomers, population geneticists, archaeologists, glaciologists in the bench of the accused too?

Ask Sue.

 

[AV1611VET]

You haven't answered my question. Why do you think your "good question" is relevant?

Would you know it, if it was?

 

[AV1611VET]

I am well aware of the concept of apparent age,

Apparent Age can take a hike.

Learn the difference between APPARENT AGE and EMBEDDED AGE.

... in which some people claim the Earth was created to look like it had been around millions of years when it was created. That is the omphalos argument which I address in the OP.

You have vocally disapproved of the omphalos argument. You have repeatedly argued that most of the fossils were from the flood (and other Old Testament events) and that they were specifically rearranged by God after the flood. That is a very unusual argument. If you were to stand firm on it, I will address it further, but I see no need to address an argument in which the number of people known to currently support that argument is equal to zero. For you seem to have abandoned it.

So you seem to have abandoned both omphalos and rearranged-junk-from-the-flood-ism. Now you seem to say the earth was created millions of years ago in 4004 BC. That is simply gibberish. It violates basic math.

I may need to revive my old poem that explains that 2 + 2 cannot equal 10.

Have a nice day, Merle.

You're just confusing yourself further.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Astrid]

Accusing an entire science of being fraudulent, "for looking good".
Can we add all astronomers, population geneticists, archaeologists, glaciologists in the bench of the accused too?

Those naughty scientist- Elmer Gantries!

 

[AV1611VET]

Those naughty scientist- Elmer Gantries!

Would Elmer Gantry know it, if they were?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't use a calculator to work out the age of the earth.

I use a calculator to work out how long the earth has been in existence.

As far as the earth's age is concerned, it is as old as God willed it when He created it.

(You still don't understand embedded age, do you?)

You responded to the same comment two different ways so I'll answer this one since it's actually relevant.

You do use a calculator to work out the age of the Earth. You use the dates in the genealogy given by Bishop Ussher to work out the age. That's not an electronic calculator, but that is still a calculator.

And your embedded age, maturity without history, Last Thursdayism bullquack can take a long hike of a short pier. I understand it just fine. I think it's a old of old codswallop.

 

[sjastro]

What this chart shows is nothing more than what you could call "stretched time."

It's just taking the time this earth has been in existence (6021 years) and stretching it out to a distance of 4.543 billion years.

Assume you live on a street that is one mile long.

Now stretch your street out to a distance of 754,526 miles (4,543,000,000 ÷ 6021) and segment that distance into three major segments called Cenozoic Junction, Mesozoic Junction, and Paleozoic Junction.

That's what geologists do ON PAPER, and it makes them look good; but they're wrong.

Bring that 754,526 mile street you live on back to its proper length, and all three of those junctions exist side-by-side.

Assuming they don't overlap.

What's going on here?
In that other thread I calculated your real age as being no more than 15 minutes based on stretching 6000 years to 13.7 billion years.
Now you have changed the parameters to 6021 years stretched out to 4.543 billion years which makes you no older than 45 minutes.

Frankly I have no time for people who lie about their age.

 

[AV1611VET]

And your embedded age, maturity without history, Last Thursdayism bullquack can take a long hike of a short pier. I understand it just fine. I think it's a old of old codswallop.

Merry Christmas!