Do Creationists Believe in Talking Snakes?

[Job 33:6]

eThe fossil record is hardly “the record of life in the geologic past” that so many scientists incorrectly espouse, assuming a long prehistory for the earth and life on it. Instead, it is a record of the deaths of countless billions of animals and plants.

Most of the sedimentary rock layers were deposited rapidly. Indeed, the impeccable state of preservation of most fossils requires the animals and plants to have been very rapidly buried, by vast amounts of sediments before decay could destroy them.

So the animals and plants buried and fossilized in those rock layers may well have all lived at about the same time and then have been rapidly buried progressively and sequentially.

There are very thick sequences of rock layers, found below the main strata record containing prolific fossils, which are either totally devoid of fossils or only contain very rare fossils of microorganisms and minor invertebrates. In the biblical framework of earth history, these strata would be classified as creation week and pre-Flood.
What conclusions you come to depend on your overall belief about the history of the earth.

How do you propose that a chaotic flood sorted fossils in the earth to lay fish down in oldest layers, followed by amphibians, follower by reptiles, then birds and mammals?

Or do you simply deny that this reflects reality?

 

[Job 33:6]

How do you propose that a chaotic flood sorted fossils in the earth to lay fish down in oldest layers, followed by amphibians, follower by reptiles, then birds and mammals?

Or do you simply deny that this reflects reality?

 

[Job 33:6]

eThe fossil record is hardly “the record of life in the geologic past” that so many scientists incorrectly espouse, assuming a long prehistory for the earth and life on it. Instead, it is a record of the deaths of countless billions of animals and plants.

Most of the sedimentary rock layers were deposited rapidly. Indeed, the impeccable state of preservation of most fossils requires the animals and plants to have been very rapidly buried, by vast amounts of sediments before decay could destroy them.

So the animals and plants buried and fossilized in those rock layers may well have all lived at about the same time and then have been rapidly buried progressively and sequentially.

There are very thick sequences of rock layers, found below the main strata record containing prolific fossils, which are either totally devoid of fossils or only contain very rare fossils of microorganisms and minor invertebrates. In the biblical framework of earth history, these strata would be classified as creation week and pre-Flood.
What conclusions you come to depend on your overall belief about the history of the earth.

Also, as mentioned in the discussion we had a few days ago:

What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

In the green river formation, there are over 5 million independent varves, deposited by the melting of ice.

Ever wonder how long it might take to lay down 5 million repeating layers? Or how a flood could even do such a thing? No flood produces repeating sequences of layers. It would defy physics because such sequences are not sorted by density, given that less dense layers rest both above and below more dense layers.

And what if I went further to point out that this green river formation contained oval shaped bodies of rock in the shape of what appears to be a prehistoric lakes?

And what if I went further and described how the base of this lake shaped body was anoxic and radiated to an oxidated state as we went outward from the center of the lake shaped body?

And what if I went further and mentioned that only lacustrine animals were found in this formation (never any salt water animals), and what if I went further and what if I mentioned that in some portions of this formation there were hundreds of bird tracks, that had no particular direction, as if birds were aimlessly wandering around in shallow lake water (I wonder what such birds might have been up to if not casually hunting fish and bugs for hours on end?) And how they had time to aimlessly wander around if they were allegedly right in the middle of being buried by a catatrophic flood (the tracks are found between layers after all, so they must have been walking around right in the middle of things).

And what if I went further and mentioned about how these 5 million repeating layers only made up a small fraction, perhaps just 5-10% of an overall much deeper succession of rocks that otherwise also held their own unique qualities and history?

How could it all be if not as a product of an old earth?

So somehow this alleged flood sorts sediment into 5 million+ distinct varves, and somehow right in the middle of this flood there are birds casually wandering around in a body of deposits the shape of a lake. And birds, when they are fleeing something, they tend to fly. They don't aimelessly walk in circles. And somehow this flood also produced anoxic conditions right at the bottom of this lake-shaped deposit.

And somehow fossil fish are limited to the extent of the space that is lake shaped?

To make matters worse, we also have plenty of feeding and resting traces throughout the fossil record as well. Feeding traces of birds, fish, mammals etc.

FEEDING TRACES ASSOCIATED WITH BIRD TRACKS FROM THE LOWER CRETACEOUS HAMAN FORMATION, REPUBLIC OF KOREA on JSTOR

So right in the middle of this crazy flood where mountains were being shoved into the atmosphere and thousands a feat of sediment or being deposited, we have these animals aimlessly walking around eating grass off of the ground. Just casually grazing right in the middle of doomsday.

 

[renniks]

How do you propose that a chaotic flood sorted fossils in the earth to lay fish down in oldest layers, followed by amphibians, follower by reptiles, then birds and mammals?

Or do you simply deny that this reflects reality?

So, in the lower layers, we have marine life. In the higher layers, we have amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. The flood started with the fountains of the deep, water from under the ocean pushing outwards. So, the first layer to be laid down on land is the shallow marine creatures. Then the crawling land critters and finally birds and mammals that are more mobile. If you simply had water coming down from above, this might not make sense, but that's not what the creation model is.

 

[renniks]

Also, as mentioned in the discussion we had a few days ago:

What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

In the green river formation, there are over 5 million independent varves, deposited by the melting of ice.

View attachment 297346


Ever wonder how old long it might take to lay down 5 million repeating layers? Or how a flood could even do such a thing? No flood produces repeating sequences of layers. It would defy physics.

And what if I went further to point out that this green river formation contained oval shaped formations in the shape of what appears to be a prehistoric lakes?

View attachment 297347
And what if I went further and described how the base of this formation was anoxic and radiated to an oxidated state as we went outward from the center of the lake shaped body?
View attachment 297348

And what if I went further and mentioned that only lacustrine animals were found in this formation (never any salt water animals), and what if I went further and what if I mentioned that in some portions of this formation there were hundreds of bird tracks, that had no particular direction, as if birds were aimlessly wandering around in shallow water (I wonder what such birds might have been up to if not casually hunting fish and bugs for hours on end?) And how they had time to aimlessly wanter around if they were allegedly right in the middle of being buried by a catatrophic flood.

View attachment 297349


And what if I went further and mentioned about how these 5 million repeating layers only made up a small fraction, perhaps just 5-10% of an overall much deeper succession of rocks that otherwise also held their own unique qualities and history?

View attachment 297350

How could it all be if not as a product of an old earth?

I'm not a geologist. If you want to see what the creation theories are on the green river formation, I suggest you read them:
The geologic setting of the Green River Formation - creation.com

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm not a geologist. If you want to see what the creation theories are on the green river formation, I suggest you read them:
The geologic setting of the Green River Formation - creation.com

Well I am a scientist. And the simple response is that, young earth Creationists don't have a response. I've added to the above.

Check out the last part I added about animal feeding traces.

"To make matters worse, we also have plenty of feeding and resting traces throughout the fossil record as well. Feeding traces of birds, fish, mammals etc.

FEEDING TRACES ASSOCIATED WITH BIRD TRACKS FROM THE LOWER CRETACEOUS HAMAN FORMATION, REPUBLIC OF KOREA on JSTOR

So right in the middle of this crazy flood where mountains were being shoved into the atmosphere and thousands a feat of sediment or being deposited, we have these animals aimlessly walking around eating grass off of the ground. Just casually grazing right in the middle of doomsday."

And believe me, I've read countless young earth Creationists articles over the years. They tell half truths and cleverly (or deceptively) and consistently leave out details. Sometimes they just tell blatantly false information as well, often with a guise of appearing to be professional.

 

[Job 33:6]

So, in the lower layers, we have marine life. In the higher layers, we have amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. The flood started with the fountains of the deep, water from under the ocean pushing outwards. So, the first layer to be laid down on land is the shallow marine creatures. Then the crawling land critters and finally birds and mammals that are more mobile. If you simply had water coming down from above, this might not make sense, but that's not what the creation model is.

What you aren't recognizing above or addressing above, and I've tried to make mention of this before, is that...

Well first off, such a suggestion doesn't address why there is a plant fossil succession, because it's not like seeded plants live in the ocean or can run faster or anything like that over flowing or non vascular plants,

But More importantly, we have to understand that it isn't that lower layers only completely fish and then higher levels only contain amphibians and then higher levels only contain reptiles and then higher levels only contain birds and mammals.

But more specifically it's that these are the layers in which these fossils first appeared. So the higher levels still contain fish, but the lower levels do not contain mammals.

So it doesn't really make sense to say that birds are more mobile than fish and therefore birds are found in higher levels and fish are found in lower levels, because the fish are also in the levels with birds as well. But the birds are not found in the layers with fish deep down.

 

[renniks]

Well I am a scientist. And the simple response is that, young earth Creationists don't have a response. I've added to the above.

Check out the last part I added about animal feeding traces.

"To make matters worse, we also have plenty of feeding and resting traces throughout the fossil record as well. Feeding traces of birds, fish, mammals etc.

FEEDING TRACES ASSOCIATED WITH BIRD TRACKS FROM THE LOWER CRETACEOUS HAMAN FORMATION, REPUBLIC OF KOREA on JSTOR

So right in the middle of this crazy flood where mountains were being shoved into the atmosphere and thousands a feat of sediment or being deposited, we have these animals aimlessly walking around eating grass off of the ground. Just casually grazing right in the middle of doomsday."

And believe me, I've read countless young earth Creationists articles over the years. They tell half truths and cleverly (or deceptively) and consistently leave out details. Sometimes they just tell blatantly false information as well, often with a guise of appearing to be professional.

I'm curious how merely seeing bird tracks in rock tell you they are feeding? And why wouldn't they be feeding right before the sediment got to that area? I've spent more time tracking animals than 99 percent of the people on here, guaranteed. The best trackers in the world still can't always tell you exactly what an animal is doing every time. I really don't see how sediment enclosing tracks from a mudflat and fossilizing them disprove the flood.

 

[renniks]

So it doesn't really make sense to say that birds are more mobile than fish and therefore birds are found in higher levels and fish are found in lower levels, because the fish are also in the levels with birds as well. But the birds are not found in the layers with fish deep down

And how does this disprove the flood theory? It makes perfect sense to me that some dead fish floated higher and then got buried. In fact, it makes a lot more sense than seeing birds and fish together in the evolution theory.

 

[Job 33:6]

What you aren't recognizing above or addressing above, and I've tried to make mention of this before, is that...

Well first off, such a suggestion doesn't address why there is a plant fossil succession, because it's not like seeded plants live in the ocean or can run faster or anything like that over flowing or non vascular plants,

But More importantly, we have to understand that it isn't that lower layers only completely fish and then higher levels only contain amphibians and then higher levels only contain reptiles and then higher levels only contain birds and mammals.

But more specifically it's that these are the layers in which these fossils first appeared. So the higher levels still contain fish, but the lower levels do not contain mammals.

So it doesn't really make sense to say that birds are more mobile than fish and therefore birds are found in higher levels and fish are found in lower levels, because the fish are also in the levels with birds as well. But the birds are not found in the layers with fish deep down.

And here is a diagram above to help describe, so we see that we have shelled invertebrates In the Cambrian, and then we see fish right at the end of the Cambrian but fish don't disappear as we go into the ordovician but rather they continue forward In time come in and by the time we get to the Devonian we get amphibians, but the fish are still there it's just that now amphibians are present. And then amphibians and fish together continue forward into the carboniferous where reptiles then appear, and then the three of them continue forward into the Mesozoic where birds and mammals appear in the triassic and then jurassic etc.

And then even further in the late cenozic is when we get things like whales. And they are aquatic just like fish and some whales are big and slow, but they're found relatively late in the succession.

And this makes sense with respect to the theory of evolution because whales are mammals, And therefore whales are found with mammals in the fossil record as opposed to being found with fish early in the fossil record, though they are limited to swimming like fish.

which means that the fossil record is sorted with warm-blooded animals being later in the succession, and that it doesn't really have anything to do with mobility but rather it has to do with genetics and having warm blood and common descent.

 

[Job 33:6]

And how does this disprove the flood theory? It makes perfect sense to me that some dead fish floated higher and then got buried. In fact, it makes a lot more sense than seeing birds and fish together in the evolution theory.

Birds and fish live together throughout history, including today, so it shouldn't be a surprise that bird and fish fossils are found together through most of the fossil succession with the exception of periods of time before birds existed (in which case there were only fish because birds hadn't evolved yet). And that's the simple explanation from the theory of evolution.


what you're suggesting is that the fossil succession is formed based on what dead animals float better or worse than others, but there is absolutely no basis for this suggestion.

Fish are found above mammals and fish are found below mammals, This has nothing to do with fish floating more or less than any other type of animal.

Also, as mentioned before there is a fossil succession for plants as well, there's really no basis to suggest that flowering plant leaves float better or worse than seeded plant leaves.

Your proposal simply doesn't make any sense and is not supported by any observations or any evidence.

 

[Job 33:6]

Birds and fish live together throughout history, including today, so it shouldn't be a surprise that bird and fish fossils are found together through most of the fossil succession with the exception of periods of time before birds existed (in which case there were only fish because birds hadn't evolved yet). And that's the simple explanation from the theory of evolution.


what you're suggesting is that the fossil succession is formed based on what dead animals float better or worse than others, but there is absolutely no basis for this suggestion.

Fish are found above mammals and fish are found below mammals, This has nothing to do with fish floating more or less than any other type of animal.

Also, as mentioned before there is a fossil succession for plants as well, there's really no basis to suggest that flowering plant leaves float better or worse than seeded plant leaves.

Your proposal simply doesn't make any sense and is not supported by any observations or any evidence.

And here is the order in which plants are found in the fossil record. You have non-vascular plants early on in the pre-cambrian.

And even still the earliest plants were aquatic plants, and land plants didn't appear until Devonian strata and above.

And you get seeded plants appearing later on in the triassic, and then further you get flowering plants in the jurassic.

This has nothing to do with one type of leaf floating better or worse than a different one. Nobody would dare argue that leaves of flowering plants float better than leaves of seeded plants. This is just silly.

But this gets even worse, it gets a million times worse for young earth creationists when we begin examining and comparing paleontology with the cladistics of other fields of study. It turns into a mike tyson match against a 4th grader.

 

[Job 33:6]

View attachment 297354

And here is the order in which plants are found in the fossil record. You have non-vascular plants early on in the pre-cambrian.

And even still the earliest plants were aquatic plants, and land plants didn't appear until Devonian strata and above.

And you get seeded plants appearing later on in the triassic, and then further you get flowering plants in the jurassic.

This has nothing to do with one type of leaf floating better or worse than a different one. Nobody would dare argue that leaves of flowering plants float better than leaves of seeded plants. This is just silly.

But this gets even worse, it gets a million times worse for young earth creationists when we begin examining and comparing paleontology with the cladistics of other fields of study. It turns into a mike tyson match against a 4th grader.

Most young earth creationists tend to argue that the dating of the rock layers is wrong, and therefore none of this is true.

And they do this by proposing some strange idea that maybe rocks are dated using only fossils and fossils are dated using only rocks.

But what they never talk about is what we started the conversation with, which is the law of superposition which really is at the true base of how rock layers are dated. And not necessarily dated in the sense of absolute radiometric dating, but dated in the sense that we can see that there's an order of fossils.

So in order for young eaeth creationists to really get out of the bind of this situation, they basically have to argue against fundamental reality. They have to argue against the law of superposition. And there's just no way they can win that. So usually they just don't talk about it all together.

But in geology, and as geologists, we have structural geologists who do this kind of stuff all the time. The existence of the field of study of structural geology is an instantaneous contradiction to younger creations. anyone who takes any structural geology course, or sits through one for just a day, will automatically see the contradictions that exist in young earth creationism. And these contradictions aren't made up textbook ideas, they are these philosophical and fundamental concepts that basically cannot be disproven.

older layers on the bottom, younger layers on the top, this is something so fundamentally truthful that there's just nothing anyone can do about it. It just is as God made it. And if fossils are in these layers, then the fossil succession follows the same logic.

And that is the truth of the fossil succession at large. It is as God made it. Jesus once used the popular phrase when he said "I Am". And that's basically how fundamentally truthful the fossil record is. "It Is". And only God could possibly be behind it. It isn't man's knowledge, It isn't Satan, it's just creation.

And once we get past all of this, then we can begin introducing paleontology into the collection of other fields of science that are indicating the exact same succession.

And once we see the collective unifying cladistic organization of species, there is nothing stopping the theory of evolution. Only God could be behind something so philosophically and utterly true.

And then sometimes going earth creationist websites will argue that earthquakes can cause older layers to move on top of younger layers, or deeper layers to move on top of shallower layers.

But think about it, imagine if you went outside and took a shovel and stuck it in the ground and flipped the ground upside down. Don't you think there would be evidence for that? imagine going to a flower bed and digging up somebody's flowers and saying oh now the lower layers are on top of your flowers. wouldn't it be so obvious to everyone that you've just destroyed their flower bed?

It's the same thing in geology, if an earthquake or an avalanche or a rock slide occurs, or if there's a thrust fault and layers are pushed from deep down over top of shell the rocks, it's readily obvious to everyone who looks at it. And when it doesn't happen, the layers are uniform and laterally continuous and originally horizontal. Original horizontality another law that is so fundamentally true that nobody can really argue against it unless they want to argue against gravity.

The counter arguments to geology really can only be embraced by people who... Well, people who typically arent scientists. because people who do look at the rock record on a regular basis can see right through it and all its holes like Swiss cheese.

And now I'll await a lack of response and pure denial.

 

[renniks]

Your proposal simply doesn't make any sense and is not supported by any observations or any evidence.

What proposal is that? Marine life fossils found on mountains fit into creation theories at least as well as evolution theories also. I don't think you're really willing to consider others possiblitys.

 

[coffee4u]

Freth: “Visions, dreams and parables are always identified in scripture before they are presented.”

This isn’t true at all. Psalm 22 has long been taken to be a prophecy of the crucifixion. It is not identified as a dream or a vision. We are left to figure that out.

Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled
me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.
They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.
Psalm 22: 16-18 NIV

All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the
LORD, and all the families of the nations will bow down
before him,
Psalm 22:27 NIV

Psalm 2 is also a prophecy. Nothing in the text identifies it as a vision of the future, but to be true it must be a vision of the future.

Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?
Psalm 2:1 NIV

The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
Psalm 2:4 NIV

“I have installed my King [Or king] on Zion, my holy hill.”
Psalm 2:6 NIV

The entire book of Psalms are songs and poetry, so there is no need for each and everyone to say if it is a song or poetry before hand.
The very meaning of the word psalm means 'a sacred song or hymn'
Songs and poetry can certainly proclaim truth, but they may also take poetic license in doing so.
Psalm 98:8
Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy;
We all know that rivers do not have hands to clap and mountains can't sing. Poetic license is being used to paint a picture in the mind.

 

[renniks]

And even still the earliest plants were aquatic plants, and land plants didn't appear until Devonian strata and above.

These neat little charts don't even make sense if evolution has it right. Algae still exists. If the layers are due to time periods, there would be as much algae fossilized in later layers as " early " ones. Same with invertebrates.

 

[Job 33:6]

These neat little charts don't even make sense if evolution has it right. Algae still exists. If the layers are due to time periods, there would be as much algae fossilized in later layers as " early " ones. Same with invertebrates.

There is^

Cenozoic coralline algal assemblage from southwestern Kutch and its importance in palaeoenvironment and palaeobathymetry on JSTOR

Mesozoic cyanobacteria and calcareous ? Algae of the Apennine platform (Latium and Abruzzi, Italy) - ScienceDirect

Late Paleozoic Calcareous Red Algae


Category:Paleozoic invertebrates - Wikipedia




The diagrams are describing when things first appeared.

View attachment 297364

So for example, algae appears in the precambrian, but notice that the orange-brown line above algae continues upwards through the mesozoic and cenozoic.

Whereas angiosperms on the other hand, they first appear in the mesozoic, late jurassic to early cretaceous and continue upwards through the cenozoic.

The difference being the timing of their first appearance.

View attachment 297365

Then with animals as well, the line continues up into the cenozoic. So for example, fish appear in the Cambrian, and their fossils continue upwards through to the cenozoic. Whereas amphibians on the other hand don't appear until the Devonian, but are still observed in all later strata up through the cenozoic.

 

[renniks]

There is^

So, the neat little charts lie.

 

[Job 33:6]

There is^

Cenozoic coralline algal assemblage from southwestern Kutch and its importance in palaeoenvironment and palaeobathymetry on JSTOR

Mesozoic cyanobacteria and calcareous ? Algae of the Apennine platform (Latium and Abruzzi, Italy) - ScienceDirect

Late Paleozoic Calcareous Red Algae


Category:Paleozoic invertebrates - Wikipedia




The diagrams are describing when things first appeared.

So for example, algae appears in the precambrian, but notice that the orange-brown line above algae continues upwards through the mesozoic and cenozoic.

Whereas angiosperms on the other hand, they first appear in the mesozoic, late jurassic to early cretaceous and continue upwards through the cenozoic.

The difference being the timing of their first appearance.

Then with animals as well, the line continues up into the cenozoic. So for example, fish appear in the Cambrian, and their fossils continue upwards through to the cenozoic. Whereas amphibians on the other hand don't appear until the Devonian, but are still observed in all later strata up through the cenozoic.

For reference.

 

[Job 33:6]

So, the neat little charts lie.

No, you're just incorrectly reading the chart.

Look again below at algae:

So look at algae. And notice to the left of the word algae is the pre-Cambrian. So that's when algae first appears on the fossil record.

But just because that's when it first appeared, That doesn't mean that algae is not found in later rocks as well. It only means that it's not found in earlier rocks.

So the diagram depicts this by extending the line above algae upwards through all the other periods and eras, up to the cenozoic, which is modern times.