Is Genesis history?

[Bible Highlighter]

20 minutes to 30 minutes

So in this segment I see a couple of individuals talking about this idea that there are small volcanoes that erupt today, and that there were bigger volcanoes that erupted in the past (which is undoubtedly true) that deposited greater quantities of lava.

Then there was this conclusion that because events of today, such as volcanic eruptions, might be smaller than some events of the past, that we therefore cannot use events of today to judge this expanse of time of the past.

Personally I think that this is kind of a baseless conclusion.

Was there something different about how volcanoes erupted in the past? No.

And what does that mean with regards to layers that have nothing to do with volcanoes? What is our excuse for them?

What exactly is the real argument here that the individual is making? It's kind of this open-ended thought that doesn't really have a particular technical case to it, it's just more of a broad idea and thought that isn't necessarily justified in anything that he has said.

Moving on...

Then the two individuals talk about radiometric dating and the one says that radiometric dating is where geologists get their idea that the Earth is millions of years old.

But actually this isn't true, scientists have had a number of ways of establishing that the Earth was old long before radiometric dating was ever discovered.

James Hutton was writing about an ancient earth in the 1700s with his observations at siccar point, while radiometric dating really has only been around since perhaps the 1900s? The idea that geologists judge the age of the Earth based on radiometric dating just isn't true. While radiometric dating might be an additional line of evidence for an old earth, it is not the original concept or body of evidence that led geologists to accept that the earth was. It's just icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

Kelvin also had his own estimates in the 1800s as well of an earth hundreds of millions of years old which also predated use of radioactive dating.
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin - Wikipedia

Many historical scientists recognized that the earth was ancient long before radioactive dating was ever discovered.

Age of Earth - Wikipedia

Then the individual talks about collecting samples and sending them to different laboratories for analysis, and receiving results that are different.

What should be said about this is that it's easy to get false data, but how does this individual address situations where multiple laboratories are giving the same result?

Again, it's not a matter of getting different results and debunking a method of analysis, but rather it's a question how you address results when they are yielding the same result? And I'm not talking about numbers one through 10 that happened to be similar, I'm talking about things that are parts per million or parts per billion in precision with each other.

View attachment 301263

Radiometric Dating Does Work! | National Center for Science Education

Data from independent labs worldwide using various analytical methods for various different isotopes on various samples collected from various locations around the world.

The odds of these laboratories receiving identical results is practically non-existent.

Anyone can go outside with dirt on their hands, pick up a rock and send it into the laboratory and that contamination will yield a false result. And then say "look my result is wrong therefore the method is flawed!". But this just isn't reasonable.

I work with a lot of soil, groundwater and rock dating myself (among other things, air, vapor, surface water, pore water, etc, I do a lot of lab related sampling, or have over the years) and anyone can contaminate samples. Anyone can collect samples that aren't representative of native soil or of a particular rock formation. And this is why we have things like quality assurance and quality control practices. practices where we run blank samples and duplicates and method and equipment blanks and spiked duplicates etc.

So again, it isn't about a bunch of samples giving different results and disproving a method, because anyone can collect bad samples. The question is when quality control and quality assurance is implemented, how do you address scenarios where the analytical results are identical?

The video doesn't talk about any of these quality assurance and quality control practices. And unfortunately these are more of the technical details that the general public doesn't really know about because they don't do the work. So the general public isn't really able to determine if what this individual is saying is true or not because they aren't familiar with the actual work that we do.

This video and the individuals in this video don't talk about any quality control related details, in fact if we were to actually search for this person's research, we would find that their research is in absence of all of these quality control and quality assurance procedures. I know this because I happen to have already looked into this topic, and if anyone is curious about more information, feel free to ask.

Again, it's just an omission of information on the part of those producing the video. Though we shouldnt necessarily expect super high quality information from a YouTube film.

And then they go into discussion about some conspiracy about scientists seeking to take down the Bible because of evolution or something like this.

This final couple minutes of the video segment doesn't involve any technical arguments nor does it address quality control shortcomings of the topics they just discussed nor does it discuss how understanding the age of the Earth was established long before radiometric dating ever existed.

It's more just open claims and people just thinking about philosophical challenges, but they aren't really addressing any technical science, rather they're just kind of openly talking and speaking their thoughts on a topic.

Onward to the next ten minutes!

Actually, secular Scientists were asked to date volcanic rock that was from a recent volcano eruption and they dated it to be very old. This is all a part of the deception. Assumptions are made on the dating of the rocks. Pure and simple. So no. I don't believe Radiometric dating is truly reliable.

As for Evolution: It is a joke. There are no transitional fossils anywhere. Of course Evolution includes an Old Earth. It's a part of the package deal in eliminating God by secular atheists (Which includes the Scientists).

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually, secular Scientists were asked to date volcanic rock that was from a recent volcano eruption and they dated it to be very old. This is all a part of the deception. Assumptions are made on the dating of the rocks. Pure and simple. So no. I don't believe Radiometric dating is truly reliable.

As for Evolution: It is a joke. There are no transitional fossils anywhere. Of course Evolution includes an Old Earth. It's a part of the package deal in eliminating God by secular atheists (Which includes the Scientists).

"So again, it isn't about a bunch of samples giving different results and disproving a method, because anyone can collect contaminated samples [or labs can contaminate samples by running multiple samples in the same machine without purging in between]. The question is when quality control and quality assurance is implemented, how do you address scenarios where the analytical results are identical?" -me in my prior post

Conspiracy! Conspiracy! The scientists are all teaming up around the world to destroy the Bible!

No . It's not a conspiracy, it's just science.

I'm just going to note that young earth creationists don't have an explanation for this. All they can really do is baselessly suggest that scientists are in some kind of a big conspiracy where scientists around the world, myself included (oddly enough and to my own surprise!), are somehow out here making up data for the sake of taking down the Bible (nevermind many of us being Christians ourselves). Sometimes I laugh but this really is what their counter argument is

 

[Bible Highlighter]

"So again, it isn't about a bunch of samples giving different results and disproving a method, because anyone can collect bad samples. The question is when quality control and quality assurance is implemented, how do you address scenarios where the analytical results are identical?" -me in my prior post

View attachment 301270


Conspiracy! Conspiracy! The scientists are all teaming up around the world to destroy the Bible!

No . It's not a conspiracy, it's just science.

The bad sample shows that they are biased in dating things because they want the Earth to be old. This was not the first time they failed the test, either. So yes. They have an agenda. You don't have a time machine to prove the Earth is millions of years old. All ya got is some dating method with assumptions involved. There is no way to truly test to see if they are correct in their dating methods. History is in the past and it is no longer around. We can only observe what we see now. Making educated guesses about the past is not always accurate. Assumptions and bias is involved.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I got the best evidence for a young Earth.

It is my Bible.
Just read and believing it will make you believe in a Young Earth.
I mean, people do not think Jonah was in the whale for 3,000 years or 3 millions of years.
People do not think the Israelites marched around Jericho for millions of years.
Oh, but when it comes to Genesis 1, all of a sudden, it is magically re-interpreted to cram in millions of years when it cannot be really read that way naturally. Look. A person either believes in the Genesis 1 account in their Bible, or they don't believe in it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

 

[Lost4words]

Seems to me, that conventional science has been making errors in dating and in their beliefs in evolution.

Dating 'modern' volcanic eruptions as 'ancient' when they clearly are not shows that there is a massive error in their dating processes.

 

[Lost4words]

@Lost4words

I would recommend checking out the following Christian video.
While it is more about refuting the lies in Evolution, it will help one to realize that there is a false worldview by secular people who want to elimitate God.

But keep in mind that Evolution is tied to an Old Earth worldview. God's Word does not make it clear that the Earth is old, but it implies that it is young by Jesus referring to the “beginning” with words that our Lord says that are mentioned in both Genesis 1, and Genesis 2. Now, to say that “the beginning” was happening in Genesis 2 (with God forming Eve for Adam), and yet “the beginning” was still happening for millions of years does not sound consistent; Especially when a normal child like reading of Genesis 1 sounds like a quick event of God creating everything in 6 literal 24 hour days.

Side Note:

Some may argue that the Bible teaches that the Earth is flat, but this is not a good argument because the Bible actually teaches that the Earth is round.

Check out this short write up here:

https://pdf4pro.com/cdn/does-the-bible-teach-a-spherical-earth-eternal-196284.pdf

Fascinating video.

So many anomalies in scientific 'evidence' of evolution.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Fascinating video.

So many anomalies in scientific 'evidence' of evolution.

I am glad you found it informative.

 

[Job 33:6]

Seems to me, that conventional science has been making errors in dating and in their beliefs in evolution.

Dating 'modern' volcanic eruptions as 'ancient' when they clearly are not shows that there is a massive error in their dating processes.

"So again, it isn't about a bunch of samples giving different results and disproving a method, because anyone can collect contaminated samples [or labs can contaminate samples by running multiple samples in the same machine without purging in between]. The question is when quality control and quality assurance is implemented, how do you address scenarios where the analytical results are identical?" -me in my prior post

Do you have a response for these data?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

"So again, it isn't about a bunch of samples giving different results and disproving a method, because anyone can collect contaminated samples [or labs can contaminate samples by running multiple samples in the same machine without purging in between]. The question is when quality control and quality assurance is implemented, how do you address scenarios where the analytical results are identical?" -me in my prior post

View attachment 301274


Do you have a response for these data?

Again, they dated things wrong when they did not know how old the rock was. When they know the age of the rock they can act like they know what they are talking about. But throw em a curve ball and they are clueless. Assumptions are made when they date rocks as being millions of years old.

 

[Job 33:6]

Again, they dated things wrong when they did not know how old the rock was. When they know the age of the rock they can act like they know what they are talking about.

The probability of what you're suggesting is non existent.

Take the following table.

What we're looking at is an analysis of something like a hundred samples collected from various places in Canada, mexico and Haiti.

Samples were ran in laboratories from Berkeley, Stanford, and in labs in Canada and France,

And they were ran using different isotopes, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, RB-Sr etc.

And they were analyzed by different accredited professionals, and different people.

And in those hundred or so samples, we see all identical results.

And your response is that it's basically all conspiracy.

You should understand that this is why we have quality control and quality assurance practices such as use of trip planks, equipment blanks, method blanks, matrix spike blanks, duplicate sampling.

This is what science is all about, it's about reproducibility of results. If you can't reproduce it the data gets thrown out, but if you do reproduce it it sticks and you can make a case for it.

So if you have a hundred samples from independent labs around the world and they all yield identical results within molecules measured on the order of parts per billion, it's basically like a hundred people around the world winning the lottery all playing the same number.

At some point you just have to accept that the number is the winning number and isn't just some random stroke of luck.

And this is just one example, we could find certainly dozens or even hundreds more examples of these if we bother to talk about it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The probability of what you're suggesting is non existent.

Take the following table.

View attachment 301276

What we're looking at is an analysis of something like a hundred samples collected from various places in Canada, mexico and Haiti.

Samples were ran in laboratories from Berkeley, Stanford, and in labs in Canada and France,

And they were ran using different isotopes, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, RB-Sr etc.

And they were analyzed by different accredited professionals, and different people.

And in those hundred or so samples, we see all identical results.

And your response is that it's basically all conspiracy.

You should understand that this is why we have quality control and quality assurance practices such as use of trip planks, equipment blanks, method blanks, matrix spike blanks, duplicate sampling.

This is what science is all about, it's about reproducibility of results. If you can't reproduce it the data gets thrown out, but if you do reproduce it it sticks and you can make a case for it.

So if you have a hundred samples from independent labs around the world and they all yield identical results within molecules measured on the order of parts per billion, it's basically like a hundred people around the world winning the lottery all playing the same number.

At some point you just have to accept that the number is the winning number and isn't just some random stroke of luck.

Again, you can get a magic number saying what you want, but assumptions are made on how old one wants those rocks to be. Again, you fail to realize that they failed several times when asked to date rocks that were recent (When they did not know how old the rocks were) and they dated them to be very old. So they are lying about the age of the rocks being millions of years old. In fact, I know they are lying because the Bible strongly implies that the Earth is young. For Young Earth Creationists can do the same test and they can have magic numbers appear, too. But their dating is more accurate because they are taking the bible into account.

 

[Job 33:6]

The probability of what you're suggesting is non existent.

Take the following table.

View attachment 301276

What we're looking at is an analysis of something like a hundred samples collected from various places in Canada, mexico and Haiti.

Samples were ran in laboratories from Berkeley, Stanford, and in labs in Canada and France,

And they were ran using different isotopes, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, RB-Sr etc.

And they were analyzed by different accredited professionals, and different people.

And in those hundred or so samples, we see all identical results.

And your response is that it's basically all conspiracy.

You should understand that this is why we have quality control and quality assurance practices such as use of trip planks, equipment blanks, method blanks, matrix spike blanks, duplicate sampling.

This is what science is all about, it's about reproducibility of results. If you can't reproduce it the data gets thrown out, but if you do reproduce it it sticks and you can make a case for it.

So if you have a hundred samples from independent labs around the world and they all yield identical results within molecules measured on the order of parts per billion, it's basically like a hundred people around the world winning the lottery all playing the same number.

At some point you just have to accept that the number is the winning number and isn't just some random stroke of luck.

And this is just one example, we could find certainly dozens or even hundreds more examples of these if we bother to talk about it.

Here's another example:

Again, multiple samples, multiple labs, scientists from various teams from various countries around the world, using different analytical methods and looking at different isotopes and all coming to the exact same result within microscopic precision.

You may as well have another 50 people winning the lottery around the world when they all play the same number.

The odds of it truly being a stroke of luck to have such precise identical results, the probability of this happening is non-existent (unless the result were true).

The only real way this could happen and to have it not be true, would be if there was some sort of global conspiracy of scientists forging data.

But as a scientist myself who works with this stuff, I cannot say that that's true.

And the sooner young Earth creationists can accept this, the sooner they'll be taken a little more seriously in the scientific community.

And also you can establish if something is false data or is not phosphate based on how quality control sample results are recieved. For example let's say you have a duplicate sample, or you have two samples from the same rock in the same country ran in the same lab in the same machine etc. If there's two samples give different results then you know that there's something untrue about one, the other or both samples.

But let's say that your duplicate samples both give the exact same result, but they ran through different machines in different labs in different places on Earth by different people, now you have a much more compelling argument that the results that they provide are true.

And there are many types of these quality control checks, there are blank samples where you run fully decayed material through a machine or material that you already know the result for, to see if the machine reads it correctly. You can artificially "spike" samples with known concentrations of contaminants to see if the machine will read it properly.

There are many methods that can be used to confirm these data.

The difference between real science (such as my examples) and fake science (like what is being peddles in this YouTube video), comes down to these quality insurance and quality control practices.

And with that I'll move on to the next topic, either you can accept this or you can't, but either way it doesn't really matter to me because I've already addressed the topic.

 

[klutedavid]

I used to argue for, an old earth date but, the more i look into the young earth belief the more i am edging towards that idea.

So far, the evidence is extremely strong towards a young earth.

A young earth?

The earth was formless and void before the first day.

 

[BeyondET]

Christians only please. Started here as last thread was bombarded by non Christians.

Fascinating documentary about the history of the earth from the pages of Genesis.

Before watching this video, i was of the strong belief of an 'old' earth.

After watching this video i am not so sure now. Definitely needs more thought now. Hope you enjoy watching it, as i did.

i think the history of man is young not so much the earth though.

 

[Job 33:6]

30 minutes to 40 minutes:

The one individual suggests that sedimentation of today isnt observed on the scale observed in which rock of the midwest had formed.

This isnt true. Sedimentation is observed spanning tens to hundreds of kilometers in many places around earth, from mass deserts where eolian deposition is observed such as in the sahara, to shallow marine depositional basins to deep marine deposits of plankton. Deposition is very much occuring on massive scales. Id be curious to hear how the individual overlooked these depositional environments.

Then they two talk about how layers being flat equates to a need for instantaneous deposition. This doesnt make any sense in my opinion. if anything, the older a formation is, the longer amount of time erosional forces would have to work on it. And what do erosional forces do but flatten things? i mean what does this guy expect? Does he think that wind is going to blow and erode layers underground? At some point erosion makes layers flat, therefore if we find flat layers, then its simply an indication that theyve had plently of time to erode.

Anyway, i find these individuals ideas quite strange that they would think that the older something is, that the less flat it should be. Erosion makes things flat, therefore the more time something is subjected to erosion, the flatter it ought to be (unless lifted by orogenesis)

Its also true that layers are deposited original horizontal, as described in the geologic law of original horizontality.

The second half of this segment is just some guy talking about ideas that he has. He doesn't really make any technical arguments, he's just expressing his personal views.

And one additional note. The one speaker talking about the coconino sandstones suggested that the formation consists of underwater sand dunes. Then he goes and mentions that we know that the sandstone cross bedding was deposited underwater because it has low angled cross bedding .

I have a few thoughts on this, some technical. But. The most simple thought that I have on this topic is the following:

Fossil trackways of reptiles are commonly observed in these sandstone dunes. So much for them being submerged or a product of underwater wave action. " Thousands of feet of sediment Instantaneously deposited underwater" and yet reptiles walked around in these regions just as they wander in deserts today, as if nothing strange was going on.
Trace fossils in the Permian Coconino Sandstone

Published research also appears to indicate that these sandstone dunes in some cases are high angle and therefore could be terrestrial. Maybe I'll do more reading on this tomorrow.

That was an easy one.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here's another example:

View attachment 301278

Again, multiple samples, multiple labs, scientists from various teams from various countries around the world, using different analytical methods and looking at different isotopes and all coming to the exact same result within microscopic precision.

You may as well have another 50 people winning the lottery around the world when they all play the same number.

The odds of it truly being a stroke of luck to have such precise identical results, the probability of this happening is non-existent (unless the result were true).

The only real way this could happen and to have it not be true, would be if there was some sort of global conspiracy of scientists forging data.

But as a scientist myself who works with this stuff, I cannot say that that's true.

And the sooner young Earth creationists can accept this, the sooner they'll be taken a little more seriously in the scientific community.

And also you can establish if something is false data or is not phosphate based on how quality control sample results are recieved. For example let's say you have a duplicate sample, or you have two samples from the same rock in the same country ran in the same lab in the same machine etc. If there's two samples give different results then you know that there's something untrue about one, the other or both samples.

But let's say that your duplicate samples both give the exact same result, but they ran through different machines in different labs in different places on Earth by different people, now you have a much more compelling argument that the results that they provide are true.

And there are many types of these quality control checks, there are blank samples where you run fully decayed material through a machine or material that you already know the result for, to see if the machine reads it correctly. You can artificially "spike" samples with known concentrations of contaminants to see if the machine will read it properly.

There are many methods that can be used to confirm these data.

The difference between real science (such as my examples) and fake science (like what is being peddles in this YouTube video), comes down to these quality insurance and quality control practices.

And with that I'll move on to the next topic, either you can accept this or you can't, but either way it doesn't really matter to me because I've already addressed the topic.

I cannot confirm or deny their findings. What I know is that I trust the accounts by other Christians who support the Bible in that they told I tell me that they messed up multiple times in dating young rocks. I tell you what. If we can get a bunch of rocks that we know are recently formed from a volcano, and we get some older rocks that look the same, and we mix them up and have these scientists date them, and they can show me their results are correct with their test (in that they dated the younger rocks accurately), then I will listen to what they have to say. But I don't think that's gonna happen because I don't believe they are being truthful with their assumptions that go into the numbers game they play with rocks.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

30 minutes to 40 minutes:

The one individual suggests that sedimentation of today isnt observed on the scale observed in which rock of the midwest had formed.

This isnt true. Sedimentation is observed spanning tens to hundreds of kilometers in many places around earth, from mass deserts where eolian deposition is observed such as in the sahara, to shallow marine depositional basins to deep marine deposits of plankton. Deposition is very much occuring on massive scales. Id be curious to hear how the individual overlooked these depositional environments.

Then they two talk about how layers being flat equates to a need for instantaneous deposition. This doesnt make any sense in my opinion. if anything, the older a formation is, the longer amount of time erosional forces would have to work on it. And what do erosional forces do but flatten things? i mean what does this guy expect? Does he think that wind is going to blow and erode layers underground? At some point erosion makes layers flat, therefore if we find flat layers, then its simply an indication that theyve had plently of time to erode.

Anyway, i find these individuals ideas quite strange that they would think that the older something is, that the less flat it should be. Erosion makes things flat, therefore the more time something is subjected to erosion, the flatter it ought to be (unless lifted by orogenesis)

Its also true that layers are deposited original horizontal, as described in the geologic law of original horizontality.

The second half of this segment is just some guy talking about ideas that he has. He doesn't really make any technical arguments, he's just expressing his personal views.

And one additional note. The one speaker talking about the coconino sandstones suggested that the formation consists of underwater sand dunes. Then he goes and mentions that we know that the sandstone cross bedding was deposited underwater because it has low angled cross bedding .

I have a few thoughts on this, some technical. But. The most simple thought that I have on this topic is the following:

Fossil trackways of reptiles are commonly observed in these sandstone dunes. So much for them being submerged or a product of underwater wave action. " Thousands of feet of sediment Instantaneously deposited underwater" and yet reptiles walked around in these regions just as they wander in deserts today, as if nothing strange was going on.
Trace fossils in the Permian Coconino Sandstone

Published research also appears to indicate that these sandstone dunes in some cases are high angle and therefore could be terrestrial. Maybe I'll do more reading on this tomorrow.

That was an easy one.

Perhaps the guy was referring to the magnitude of the event of the grand canyon. In either case, you both are looking at the same data but through a different lens. You are looking to defend an Old Earth as your starting point and so you will wear glasses that have that outlook and so you look to explain things from that perspective. The Young Earth creationist does the same. But the difference between the two of you is that the Bible actually supports the Young Earth creationist. I believe your confusion over your so called geological evidence is that you do not realize that such evidence is the result of the global flood and not that it was a process of erosion over long periods of time.

 

[Job 33:6]

40 minutes to 50 minutes.


The two speakers refer to "the ice age" as if there was only one, however independent layers of glacial till, glacial striations, drop stones, moraines and more suggest that there have been multiple ice ages, But even further there have been dozens of glacial advances (and interglacial periods) within each of these ice ages as well.

so it isnt just one ice age. there is no "the" ice age (unless youre talking about the childrens movie).

The idea that glaciers formed in place by precipitation rather than migrating southward over time doesnt make any sense either, given that we have glacial moraines and striations of glacial advances.

"graveyard over graveyard over graveyard"

So what do they call this?

Fossil Grove - Wikipedia

In some instances these fossils forests overlying paleosols have foot tracks along their base, suggesting these environments were not graveyards, but rather were ecosystems much like we see today.

45:00

the individual speaking in the museum seems surprised that marine fossils could be found on land, as if perhaps he's never heard of plate tectonics.

"the ecosystem that has the first animals in it"

Incorrect, the ediacaran biota predates the cambrian, as do things like claudina, sinotubulites, microshellies, among other animal fossils.

45:55 "that shows up basically out of nowhere"

Wrong again, the cambrian explosion spans some 40 million years of time (it wasn't instantaneous at all) and was predated by species known via microshellies. things like corals, brachiopods, sponges, annelids etc all predated the cambrian explosion and are observed in the fossil record in deeper layers.

46:50 - the speaker gives some strange idea about the faunal succession being deposited as waters rise. This doesnt make any sense given that the rocks of periods throughout the column exist worldwide. its not like paleozoic rocks exist in one spot, then as you move further from the epicenter of the mid oceanic ridge, then mesozoic rocks form, then further away then cenozoic form. This idea the speaker has is all wrong.

They have this idea that giant waves are crashing across continents at perhaps dozens of kilometers per second, but then simultaneously they want it to be like a giant kiddy pool where water is gradually rising, thereby giving time for ecosystems to form. Nobody knows how fossil forests with rooted paleosols and trackways fit into their explanation.

What happens when you find mesozoic strata with an ecosystem overtop of paleozoic strata (as we do on every continent of the world). You would have to assume that this mesozoic strata came from some other place. But the issues that come with this position are endless. Everything from structural features, jointing, faulting, angular unconformities, fault gouge etc. demonstrate that strata was lithified prior to deposition of the mesozoic, things like rooted forests in paleosols with trackways in fossilized forests mid paleozoic demonstrate the development of ecosystems mid-deposition, things like complex burrow networks, trackways and nests with eggs in these layers further suggest that life was living in them, not washed in like a mass graveyard.

48:00 differences between trackways and bones are understandable when trackways, which arent going to be eaten by predators or decayed by aerobic decomposition, naturally fossilize more readily than bodies that are eaten by predators and undergo aerobic decay. 10 million years might only be the difference between one layer of rock and a single layer above it, so to suggest that it's an anomaly to have tracks in one layer without bone material, and then to have bone in the layer above it, and that this is somehow anomalous is a poor argument.

I would describe this 10-minute segment of the video as really just quite simply a barrage of misinformation.

There are a lot of details just missing out of this. Saying that life appeared abruptly during the Cambrian explosion just isn't true. Now maybe if we lived in 1960 or 1970 and we said this, people might consider it as a possibility. But in the past few decades we've discovered plenty of fossils that predate the Cambrian explosion and are continually being discovered in strata deeper and older than the Cambrian explosion. And this doesn't just include the ediacaran biota, it really has been found more and more to include a good number of Cambrian "precursors". Sponges, corals, brachiopods, annelids, the works.

Small shelly fauna - Wikipedia.

Ediacaran biota - Wikipedia

Cloudinidae - Wikipedia

Sinotubulites - Wikipedia

Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution? - Common-questions

(See the timescale in the above biologos link, diversification of the cambrian explosion literally spans tens of million of years of strata, which we didn't know 50 years ago but have since continued to discover more and more fossils).

Its as if these people in the video either intentionally left these details out, or they simply weren't aware of them. And not being aware of a topic is not justification for peddling falsehood.

I digress. Moving onto the next.

 

[Job 33:6]

Perhaps the guy was referring to the magnitude of the event of the grand canyon. In either case, you both are looking at the same data but through a different lens. You are looking to defend an Old Earth as your starting point and so you will wear glasses that have that outlook and so you look to explain things from that perspective. The Young Earth creationist does the same. But the difference between the two of you is that the Bible actually supports the Young Earth creationist. I believe your confusion over your so called geological evidence is that you do not realize that such evidence is the result of the global flood and not that it was a process of erosion over long periods of time.

I would say that this is false equivalence. It's an effort to suggest that observations in geology can go either way. I disagree with this conclusion. As discussed in my prior and ongoing posts that include reasons why.