Coincidences?

[Nathan Poe]

It is. We can't convince you that you're wrong, you'll just brush us off. observe:

it takes evidence to be convincing. You haven't delivered the goods.

I know I'm just a creatonist infedel, but what reason do you have to believe carbon 14 rots at a uniform rate? Maybe something happened to speed rotting, example a nuke going off three miles from it. Or a flood, or an insect deluge...

Because in our experience, radioactive decay rates don't arbitrarly change to appease religious dogma. They tend to stay constant.

Damning evidence? Yes. When you have the assumption evolution is correct, of course a molar in a rock proves it wrong. Or the lack of.

Huh?

"All right, Dr.Dimwit, I am about to prove your theory incorrect. If your moronic religous bs is right this 4x4 rock should have a molar in it."
Incoherant ramblings forever!

I'm just going to grab a sandwich; I'll be back when you make some sense.

 

[troodon]

but what reason do you have to believe carbon 14 rots at a uniform rate?

This thread has nothing to do with Carbon 14

Maybe something happened to speed rotting, example a nuke going off three miles from it. Or a flood, or an insect deluge...

How would those things explain the evidence provided in my posts?

"All right, Dr.Dimwit, I am about to prove your theory incorrect. If your moronic religous bs is right

I don't think I called anyone Dr.Dimwit nor did I call Creationism "moronic religous bs". Consider for a moment the possibility that I am not an atheist. Now consider for a moment the possibility that, either because of my religious beliefs or because of my politeness, I would never call someones beliefs (Christian or otherwise) "moronic" or "bs"

Now, considering you're quote "this 4x4 rock should have a molar in it" you are of the opinion that all of the cases I cited are coincidences and nothing more. Am I understanding correctly?

 

[JohnR7]

when in the last 12,000 years did this "small ice age" happen? What evidence is there?

Not begin, end.

There was a warming trend at that time and the ocean level was up between 80 and 100 feet higher than it is now. We are looking at about 5000 years ago. You can study the ice core samples from Greenland, the Bristlecone Pine rings in California. Andre Parrot in his 1954 book "The Flood and Noah"s Ark" indicates significant flood deposits at Kish, Shuurupak, Uruk, and Lagash centering on about 2800 B.C. Geologist Steve Englebright found markings on cliffs near his Amagansett home, showing that the sea level was higher 5,000 years ago than it is today. These are just a few of the many places the warming trend shows up. So there is no question at the time of Noah's flood, the whole world was in a warming trend, that would cause the ice to melt and cause the world wide water level to go up. This of course is going to cause a lot of floods.

http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnellyr/3000ind.html

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yes a local flood is not falsified as far as I can tell. However, the point of this thread is that there are no answers to the questions the fossil record raises for those who believe it was deposited by a global flood. There is no flood based interpretation of the fossil record that makes the least bit of sense. If it all really were a matter of interpretation as the YECs say there should be some explanation. There is none because there never was a global flood.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[JohnR7]

There is no flood based interpretation of the fossil record that makes the least bit of sense. If it all really were a matter of interpretation as the YECs say there should be some explanation. There is none because there never was a global flood.

It all makes sense if you can fit the last "4.5 billion" years into a 6000 year period of time. What is being questioned here is the timeline. If you remove the time line everyone pretty much agrees.

As far as a global flood, I would consider a 400 feet rise in the water level world wide to be pretty global. Do you know what Flordia looked like about 12,000 years ago? Needless to say it was a lot bigger than what it is now. Although at one time according to PBS Flordia was submerged for 100 million years.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/local/southeast.html

Like the old times always said, it is flood or drought, feast or famine. Oceans become deserts, dry and barren lands come to life again. I have even seen some dry and barren people come to life again.

 

[JohnR7]

There is none because there never was a global flood.

You have no way to prove that there was never a time when this whole world was not covered with water. Although it does not look like the whole world was underwater 5000 years ago.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You have no way to prove that there was never a time when this whole world was not covered with water. Although it does not look like the whole world was underwater 5000 years ago.

I think it's pretty clear that the whole world was not under water at least in the last few hundred million years.

Now how about some Young Earth creationist who believes in a recent global flood with the entire earth under water at the same time trying to explain how this global flood left most of the earth's fossil record, which is the subject of this thread.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[MartinM]

It all makes sense if you can fit the last "4.5 billion" years into a 6000 year period of time

In much the same way as Kent Hovind makes sense if you can fit your head into a meat grinder.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Still waiting for a YEC "intrepretation" of the fossil record that makes any sense at all. Does anyone wonder why YECs can never provide one?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[goat37]

Still waiting for a YEC "intrepretation" of the fossil record that makes any sense at all. Does anyone wonder why YECs can never provide one?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Hey, wait in line buddy... I am still trying to get an explanation of why there is no more historical records of meteor/asteroid impacts that created all of the craters on earth (land and under water) as well as the moon, if the earth was created only 6000 years ago.

They have the story of a great flood (which there is no actual evidence for) but don't have any stories dealing with all of the big meteors/asteroids that MUST have hit the earth and would have caused great catastrophe.



Edit: I just read your other post that dealt on this topic... so I guess i'll allow you to cut in line to get BOTH questions answered... just be sure you let me know! hehe

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Hey, wait in line buddy... I am still trying to get an explanation of why there is no more historical records of meteor/asteroid impacts that created all of the craters on earth (land and under water) as well as the moon, if the earth was created only 6000 years ago.

They have the story of a great flood (which there is no actual evidence for) but don't have any stories dealing with all of the big meteors/asteroids that MUST have hit the earth and would have caused great catastrophe.



Edit: I just read your other post that dealt on this topic... so I guess i'll allow you to cut in line to get BOTH questions answered... just be sure you let me know! hehe

Don't hold your breath.

I started another thread on catastrophies because it was not really the topic of the thread where you brought it up and I wanted it to stand out.

I have been waiting since the end of March for the YECs on this board to come up with a logical flood based interpretation of biogeography but I see that it has scrolled to the next page yet again.

Meanwhile can any YEC explain the fossil record?
The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Dayton]

This is a problem that has been bothering me for some time and I'd like some young earth creationist input on the idea.

Why are certain rock strata so picky in the types of organisms that appear in them; Why is it that not a single fossil of a type of organism alive today has been found in the Burgess Shale of British Columbia? Heck, why hasn't a single vertebrate creature or land dwelling organism been found there? You realize, of course, that if one mammalian molar were to be verified to have been found encased in this formation then the evolutionary timeline as we understand it would be shot, right? And yet, that molar or other piece of damning evidence (there are many possiblilities) has yet to be found. Doesn't any of that strike any YEC as being a tad coincidental?

Next question: why is it that the Morrison Formation in Colorado yields predominantly dinosaur bones? Why are there no living species of mammals or birds or even lizards ever to be found in the Morrison? Also, why is no sea life ever found in the Morrison? The Burgess Shale only yields sea life and yet the Morrison has none. Both formations were underwater for a year, right? So why does one have only extinct, invertebrate, marine life while the other has only extinct, terrestrial, vertebrate fauna? Is that just coincidence or is there some reason to this scheme of things?

Next question: why is it that the Hell Creek Formation of Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota also yields predominantly dinosaur bones but ones of completely different species (heck, genera)? Wasn't the flood violent enough to carve the Grand Canyon and move the tectonic plates hundreds of miles and other such things? If it was so violent, how come it still couldn't move Morrison dinosaur specimens to Hell Creek and visa versa? Why does the Hell Creek Formation yield almost the exact same type of remains as the Lance Formation in Wyoming and yet has no species overlap whatsoever with the Morrison? If a giant flood created these formations, I'd say that all of this is seeming way to coincidental.

Next question: why is it that in the Green River Formation of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, there are no dinosaurs of any sort (unless you count birds )? Instead of dinosaurs and anomalocaris and stegosaurs and things that are found in the other fossil formations I've listed, you find very modern looking animals such as fresh water fish, snakes, birds, primitive bats, turtles, and that type of stuff? If the currents that the Flood wielded could create the Grand Canyon, how come it couldn't drift a single Allosaurus tooth the distance between the Morrison and the Green River formations? Not only are they both in Colorado, they're only 40 miles apart (Grand Canyon is 217 miles in length). Isn't it very coincidental that the Flood could carve a giant canyon farther than it can carry a theropod tooth? Isn't it coincidental that no salt water taxa are known from any of the last three formations I've mentioned? Isn't it coincidental that not a single flowering plant is known from the Morrison yet many are well documented from the Hell Creek and Green River Formations? Jeeze!

Honestly, I just don't know. I guess I have to do more reaserch on this.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Honestly, I just don't know. I guess I have to do more reaserch on this.

Don't feel too bad. No other YEC can explain how a signficant fraction of the fossil record could have been created by a worldwide flood either.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So Dayton, how the research going? If you really do research the fossil record you will just find more and observations that flood geology can't possibly account for.

The Fumious Bandersnatch

 

[Nathan Poe]

So Dayton, how the research going? If you really do research the fossil record you will just find more and observations that flood geology can't possibly account for.

The Fumious Bandersnatch

Don't be silly! the only thing he'd find in the fossil record is "evidence" which he doesn't believe in anyway.

Dayton is obviously involved in some intense Bible study. Once he finds the right passage, he'll use his infallible interpretation to explain the whole thing.

So don't interrupt him or I'll sic the Jubjub bird on you!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It looks like the order and "coincidences" in the fossil record are just another set of data that YECs must ignore because they can't be fit to their mythology.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Siliconaut]

Everything wouldn't be half as bad in these discussions, if we wouldn't encounter the exact same arguments that have been demonstrated to be fallacious time and time again.

Someone posted his suspicion, that this is a wearing-down tactic employed by creationists. Well, thanks to information technology and the search function, it doesn't work.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Everything wouldn't be half as bad in these discussions, if we wouldn't encounter the exact same arguments that have been demonstrated to be fallacious time and time again.

Someone posted his suspicion, that this is a wearing-down tactic employed by creationists. Well, thanks to information technology and the search function, it doesn't work.

This thread was started way back on the 17th of April and we have had little or no response from all the YECs around here not even the usual fallacious arguments about biomes or escapability that we usually see. I guess the YECs here must realize that all YEC attempts to explain the order in the fossil record will fail totally. This is because the the fossil record was deposited over hundreds of millions of years and not by a mythological worldwide flood.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Siliconaut]

Hehe, the "best" "explanation" I've heard lately, is that fossils were ordered by "density" (no, not really physical density, it must have been something more metaphysical), when the fossil record shows the exact opposite: Large, heavy things would drop quicker than small, light ones - so we'd have lots of brachiosauri at the bottom and small, squishy things that go "flop" at the top. Unfortunately, it's just the other way round...

 

[troodon]

Hehe, the "best" "explanation" I've heard lately, is that fossils were ordered by "density" (no, not really physical density, it must have been something more metaphysical), when the fossil record shows the exact opposite: Large, heavy things would drop quicker than small, light ones - so we'd have lots of brachiosauri at the bottom and small, squishy things that go "flop" at the top. Unfortunately, it's just the other way round...

Ha! I've read about this too. It's supposed to be something like "amphibians have the densest(sp?) bones, followed by reptiles, mammals, and then birds. This is why these animals appear in this order in the fossil record." It completely ignores the fact that these types animals are very often found in the same strata and that many theropod dinosaurs had hollow bones (like birds).

That wouldn't account for the phenomena cited in this thread anyway because the OP cites different geographical locations where fossils are segregated, not different strata in the same location.