Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/order-in-the-fossil-record/I agree sir. I haven't abandoned it altogether. I think after doing more research the geologic column actually is pointing back to a flood YEC worldview for me again. But then again that IS the evidence I've been searching out. I think it's best just to say something like "I don't know for sure but this is what I theorize.."
As I said before, my main goal is to plant the seed of Christ, not convince people of origins. Although it does bring credit back to the bible imo to do that also.
I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.
I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.
I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.
It is possible to consider both views to be true: http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html?mobile=yesI'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.
I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.
I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.
Valetic, I was reading this thread and saw ur concern. I then rushed to AiG to get u some info but I think someone already sent you the necessary link. Here it is anyways-- https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/order-in-the-fossil-record/#fn_11Thanks! I was looking for this in answersingenesis and havent been able to find it. I'ma read it now.
I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.
I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.
I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.
I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.
I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.
I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.
I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.
I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.
I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.
The so called "geologic column" has never been proven. It is a fabrication...I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.
I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.
I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.
...to me it seems like a catastrophic global flood wouldn't bring down one type of specimen in one layer and then another in the next layer when it should really be all over the place or altogether in the same layer..
Interesting. Fossils are one of the strongest supports for Young Earth creation. And there are serious hurdles for those promoting the evolutionary 'geologic column.' Sorry this won;t be more in-depth but I don't have a lot of time for a long answer:
1. The 'geologic column' is a diagram, not a reality. It isn't found 'complete' as diagrammed anywhere in the world. There are a handful of places where all 'ten' stacks have been assigned/inferred, but even here it is not complete as none of those ten layers is the necessary thickness for the diagrammed column, even when taking erosion into account. For example, the diagram represents about 100-200 miles of rock. But local, real-world formations taken as 'proof' of the column are rarely more than a mile in total. Even the famous 'North Dakota' stack of ten is at most 16 miles. Erosion or any other known way to chip at those sediments just can't explain such a huge gap - this is a giant hurdle for proponents of the geologic 'column'. Furthermore, erosion is one of the worst forms of special-pleading for long-Earth proponents to hold to as in most places around the world there are no signs of erosion between definitive layers (e.g. fossilized soil, wind channels, water channels.)
View attachment 238432
And 'ten-stacks' are quite rare (less than .4% of the Earth's surface, at most.) Far more common is 1-3 layers. Layers are often found out of order in a way unexplainable by seismic activity, or are found without their 'intermittent' layers. (When there may well be a stack with the missing layer just a few hundred feet away) - that's a mystery for old-Earth proponents and does not support the geologic column hypothesis.
2. Whoever told you that plants/animals are separated 'correctly' within the layers is misinformed. They often are not. (Plus, for the theory of the geologic column coupled with evolution of the species to be true one would need a near-perfect record, with big deviations having clear explanations as to how they could have occurred.) You may have heard of Index fossils. Why are these particular fossils used to date layers and not others? Because unlike the rest of the fossils which can easily be found in different layers (even straddling two layers, which should be impossible under an Old Earth view unless it's cataclysm driven,) index fossils are 'more commonly' found in the 'expected' locations. But even these are not 100% consistent. For example, flowering plants supposedly evolved ~160 million years ago, but pollen samples are found in Precambrian strata supposedly over 550 million years. And duck fossils, squirrels, bees, platypus, frogs, etc. have been found along with T-Rex fossils. Older fossils can be found in strata above younger ones, or species crossing into strata they are not 'expected' to be in. Sometimes species 'skip' a strata or two as well! [The explanation offered for these many out of place fossils is that they somehow 'slipped' down through solid rock or 'reworked' themselves upwards into the next strata - which doesn't make any geological sense whatsoever.]
http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch17e.htm
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html
http://thecreationclub.com/fossils-out-of-time-and-place-bill-nye-should-be-a-creationist-now/
3. Fossilized trees are often found straddling several layers. Not only would this be impossible if sediments represented millions of years, but in many cases the rock surrounding these trees shows signs of being rapidly deposited. (Ironically, the standard explanation of this from an 'old-Earth' perspective is that in these cases, the layers formed very quickly, due to some cataclysm like a volcano, flood, sandstorm, etc.; or for upside down fossilized trees that they somehow got caught standing in water, like a swamp or flood.) Which seems to back up the flood view more than the geologic column.
4. Many creatures still alive today yet dated to 500+ millions of years old (e.g. starfish, jellyfish, brachiopods, clams, and snails) are often 'missing' from the strata they are supposed to be found in or the layer they would have been expected to be found in missing entirely.
5. In many places strata overlies other strata at an angle. These angled layers at any given point are used to support the idea of a 'column.' Why is this a problem? What is found in the layers changes laterally, not just vertically! Imagine three layers angled over each other like roof tiles which appear to match with geologic layers A, B, and C at point X. But travel along some distance and the same exact strata now hold fossils more corresponding to B, C, and D. That isn't a support for the geologic column at all - it actually is what one would expect to find with sediment layering.
6. 'Cope's Rule' details how fossils (in general) are found 'larger' as one goes up through the strata. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cope's_rule
There is no basis for this in evolution, nor any reason longer time periods would make fossils bigger as one goes up the strata. This doesn't match with ''living fossils,' many of which are clearly smaller than their ancestors. Rather, this finding matches well with the sorting of water, where smaller organisms would be expected to be deposited first.
I'm no expert, but there was a toy I saw a while back, it was nothing but an ant farm type of flat clear box with water and dirt, and when you shook it up, the dirt all naturally settled in separate layers. That would be a model of a catastrophic event that yields strata that separates materials by type.
In contrast to that, I have, as part of my job, been tasked with preparing core samples taken from the ocean floor, where gradual deposits really have been occurring since forever, but there were no strata at all. It was all just one great big layer. Yes, there were chemical differences in different parts, depending on the chronology of pollution, but there were no strata in the conventional sense.
On the matter of fossil dating, it is a fact that members from all phyla are found at the lowest levels, suggesting something other than the gradual development of complex life over time. It is also a fact that the Cambrian explosion suggests the idea of a massive global catastrophe, such as a flood. It is also a fact that marine fossils have been found atop some of the highest mountains. It is also a fact that in order to find an intact fossil, the whole creature had to be buried suddenly, alive or recently deceased, because a decomposed and crumbling organism does not make an intact fossil, which means that the best fossils come from catastrophes. If these fossils are coming from catastrophes, then they are not being deposited gradually over time.
It is also a fact that there's no such thing as an unbiased scientist. I would add, also, that the method of dating fossils according to strata does not follow the scientific method and is therefore not really science...even if it were accurate and true.
I appreciate all the responses. I am confident in defending YEC again. I don't have credentials and this is what I believe, but even if it's true or not or my brethren believe is true or not, we can use it with 1 Peter 3:15 and give the bible credit back for what evolution stole.
People demand answers and by us having tangible evidence to give we can have more room to open peoples minds to the gospel and spread it even further to this generation, that is my hope.
Here's something important:
It doesn't matter at all to your salvation. You could live your whole life as a YE creationist, or as an OE creationist, or as an evolutionist, and it wouldn't matter, so long as you followed Jesus.
He doesn't care how long you think it took or how you think He made living things. It matters in science, but it doesn't matter at all to your salvation.
I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.
I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.
I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?