Fossils are fake

hiscosmicgoldfish2 · Oct 1, 2008

MichaelTheeArchAngel said:
The answer to how the marsupials got to Australia is easy. Long after the flood the sea level was much lower and there were land bridges. Much of the water was in the higher elevations and the polar caps were heavy with snow. The sea level used to be about two or three hundred feet lower.

so what the marsupals walked to australia from Armenia/Turkey? dosn't seem likely to me. There are a few marsupials in south america. Another curious thing.. there were no land mammals on new zealand when europeans arrived there.. only reptiles/birds/bats and insects..
did they get there on logs? not the emus etc.. they must have been there in some sort of mammal-less world. How would you account for it? and no placental mammals in australia, except for dogs brought from malaysia.. and bats. I cant sort that one out.. it dosn't fit with an ark - world wide flood scenario..
but i do believe in a world-wide flood, and a literal ark, very strange...

gluadys · Oct 1, 2008

hiscosmicgoldfish2 said:
i read somewhere that there are huge fossil graveyards in some parts of the world.. can't remember where now, perhaps in the americas somewhere..

Yes, there are some. And, some of these would be one fossilization event involving thousands of individual fossils.

So again: fossils are plentiful but fossilization events are rare.

In other cases--like tar pits--the fossils would have accumulated one at a time over many years. And for every animal that got itself stuck in a tar pit, you can assume that dozens, even hundreds, did not and were never fossilized.

So you can get hundreds of fossils in one place even though fossilization events are rare.

MatthewDiscipleofGod · Oct 2, 2008

hiscosmicgoldfish2 said:
so there are some old earthers here as well.. I used to be an old-earther, but i'm coming around to young-earth'ism.. the 1000 years as a day thing is using a type of symbol to show that God is outside of time.. not to support the day-age theory. I agree that there is a problem with how did the marsupils get to Australia. That's a big problem for creationists... perhaps i'll email Kent Hovind and see if he can come up with an answer to that one....

I do have respect for Kent Hovind. I have personally been to his conferences and talked to him in person a couple times before he was sent away for not paying various taxes. I also own various releases of his DVD seminars. He has some good points but I do advice extreme discernment when viewing his material. Some of his arguments are rather faulty and nearly all creationists would disagree with him on some points. Two organizations I find to be very trustworthy are AIG and ICR. ICR does more research and AIG does more education for the public. AIG has an Australian background so this question is right up their alley.

How Did Animals Spread All Over the World From Where the Ark Landed?

hiscosmicgoldfish2 · Oct 2, 2008

Project 86 said:
I do have respect for Kent Hovind. I have personally been to his conferences and talked to him in person a couple times before he was sent away for not paying various taxes. I also own various releases of his DVD seminars. He has some good points but I do advice extreme discernment when viewing his material. Some of his arguments are rather faulty and nearly all creationists would disagree with him on some points. Two organizations I find to be very trustworthy are AIG and ICR. ICR does more research and AIG does more education for the public. AIG has an Australian background so this question is right up their alley.

How Did Animals Spread All Over the World From Where the Ark Landed?

I didn't know that about Hovind.. I like his lectures.. he can't expect to be an expert in all fields.. some of his ideas fascinate me.. but i think he's wrong about reptiles growing, i know crocks in Oz can grow huge, but there is a limit. He's more inspiring than watching Hugh Ross.. What i like about Hovind is his lateral thinking, I don't know if he came up with those ideas himself.. but he is really good with these debates with college lecturers.. i suspect they think he'll be a walk-over.. and some of them don't even bother preparing anything..
thanks for the link.. i'll read it later.. see if it answers the question or not..

MatthewDiscipleofGod · Oct 2, 2008

hiscosmicgoldfish2 said:
What i like about Hovind is his lateral thinking, I don't know if he came up with those ideas himself.. but he is really good with these debates with college lecturers.. i suspect they think he'll be a walk-over.. and some of them don't even bother preparing anything..
thanks for the link.. i'll read it later.. see if it answers the question or not..

He does really shine during debates. I notice he tends to shy away from using the weaker arguments. If you have any questions after reading the article from AIG I recommend you send them an e-mail. They have always been good and replying to my questions.

RobertByers · Oct 3, 2008

Mallon said:
Out of curiosity, what is it about the K-T boundary that you specifically see as the definitive dividing line between Flood and post-Flood events? What is it about the sediments on one side of the boundary that are so distinct from the sediments on the other side?

Above the line is the rocks with fossils that are of the post flood ascendency of mammals. These rocks within them have mammals only and not the dino world that was before. These rocks mostly come from volcanic explosions and only cover a small part of earth. it is the fossil life that determines the flood line.

Mallon · Oct 3, 2008

RobertByers said:
Above the line is the rocks with fossils that are of the post flood ascendency of mammals.

But how do you know mammals only ascended after the Flood? How do you know the world was riddled with dinosaurs before the Flood?

These rocks mostly come from volcanic explosions and only cover a small part of earth.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Cenozoic (read: post K-T) rocks are known from all over the Earth, and there is excellent evidence for massive volcanism in pre K-T rocks as well. Could you please elaborate?

it is the fossil life that determines the flood line.

Why is it not something more immediate, like sedimentary evidence of deposition? We can tell a lot about depositional environments based on sedimentology alone.

RobertByers · Oct 6, 2008

Mallon said:
But how do you know mammals only ascended after the Flood? How do you know the world was riddled with dinosaurs before the Flood?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Cenozoic (read: post K-T) rocks are known from all over the Earth, and there is excellent evidence for massive volcanism in pre K-T rocks as well. Could you please elaborate?

Why is it not something more immediate, like sedimentary evidence of deposition? We can tell a lot about depositional environments based on sedimentology alone.

The mammals are exactly or almost like our world today and so the great difference in life insists that above the line is the post flood world.
Below it is very dino etc and so clear itr was a different dominane of fauna.

Yes volcanos were a big part of the flood year but again the mammal fossils are above the line and mostly found in volcanic situations because there was not a way to fossilize post flood save this and a few other ways.
Sed rock tells little but instead the life fossilized within tells a great deal.

Mallon · Oct 6, 2008

RobertByers said:
The mammals are exactly or almost like our world today and so the great difference in life insists that above the line is the post flood world.
Below it is very dino etc and so clear itr was a different dominane of fauna.

Please forgive me, Robert, but I'm having a hard time understanding you. You seem to be saying the following:
1) We know that mammals dominated the post-Flood world because the fossil record tells us so.
2) We can identify Flood and post-Flood sediments based on how well the fossils they contain match what we see in the world today.
This line of reasoning seems circular to me. Can you please set me straight?

Yes volcanos were a big part of the flood year but again the mammal fossils are above the line and mostly found in volcanic situations because there was not a way to fossilize post flood save this and a few other ways.

Are you saying that the Cenozoic sediments in which most mammals are preserved are mostly volcanic in origin? What evidence is there for this? The vast majority of Cenozoic fossil sites I am aware of are of siliciclastic -- not volcanic -- origin. Have I been lied to by the geologists of the world?

Sed rock tells little but instead the life fossilized within tells a great deal.

My understanding is that sedimentology can tell us a lot about the nature of the environment they were deposited in. We can identify channel beds, overbank deposits, palaeoflow, deltas, shorelines, turbidites, continental slopes, dune formations, mudcracks, salinity, etc., etc., etc... all from sediments alone. So what do you mean when you say "sed rock tells us little"? I imagine sedimentary rock would tell us the MOST about the Flood that deposited them. Why is it wrong to think so?

RobertByers · Oct 10, 2008

Mallon said:
Please forgive me, Robert, but I'm having a hard time understanding you. You seem to be saying the following:
1) We know that mammals dominated the post-Flood world because the fossil record tells us so.
2) We can identify Flood and post-Flood sediments based on how well the fossils they contain match what we see in the world today.
This line of reasoning seems circular to me. Can you please set me straight?

Are you saying that the Cenozoic sediments in which most mammals are preserved are mostly volcanic in origin? What evidence is there for this? The vast majority of Cenozoic fossil sites I am aware of are of siliciclastic -- not volcanic -- origin. Have I been lied to by the geologists of the world?

My understanding is that sedimentology can tell us a lot about the nature of the environment they were deposited in. We can identify channel beds, overbank deposits, palaeoflow, deltas, shorelines, turbidites, continental slopes, dune formations, mudcracks, salinity, etc., etc., etc... all from sediments alone. So what do you mean when you say "sed rock tells us little"? I imagine sedimentary rock would tell us the MOST about the Flood that deposited them. Why is it wrong to think so?

There is a great separation in fossil life relative to the k-t boundary.
We live in a mammal world and the fossils above are of the mammal dominance and so proof they are post flood. Simple.

Whether most or much volcanic is the source. There were other ways also but all post flood.

Sed rocks do not tell the envirorment but only reveal that it was different kinds of water flows during the flood which did this or that while being a part of the process of fossilization. its a wrong interpretation to see sed rocks as showing conditions of earth but rather the condition that created the rock formations. The great flood. Save some post flood events.

Fossils are fake

hiscosmicgoldfish2

Guest

More options

gluadys

Legend

More options

MatthewDiscipleofGod

Senior Veteran

More options

hiscosmicgoldfish2

Guest

More options

MatthewDiscipleofGod

Senior Veteran

More options

RobertByers

Regular Member

More options

Mallon

Senior Veteran

More options

RobertByers

Regular Member

More options

Mallon

Senior Veteran

More options

RobertByers

Regular Member

More options

Similar threads

Fossils are fake

hiscosmicgoldfish2

Guest

Legend

Senior Veteran

hiscosmicgoldfish2

Guest

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency