Jellyfish fossil imprints, turtles, giraffes,...

[Job 33:6]

Can someone answer a question for me. I have read that current teaching on fossil formation says the animal or plant must die in a watery environment and soft mud and silt much be laid on top of it. My question is, how did the watery layers get laid on top of the dead animals if there was not a flood and how did we get fossils in mountains?

There are many factors that play into fossilization. bacterial decay and scavenging may impede fossilization. As a result, you may have a ton of fossils located in a tar pit where there is no oxygen and predators cannot scavenge. Areas exposed to erosion by wind or water, can break fossils apart, versus something like an anoxic marine landslide that would protect a fossil.

Rapid burial, whether its terrestrial or marine will play a large role in fossilization. Or other factors that prevent destruction of the animal. Whooly mammoth fossils are more frequently found frozen in ice because their fossils have been protected in that ice for over 10,000 years. Many animals are fossilized in tar pits because these environments lack predation and animals sink in them and are rapidly buried.

You asked how did water get laid on top of dead animals, some animals die in the sea. Terrestrial fossils have not necessarily been buried under water, such as tar pit animals and animals frozen in ice. These fossils formed without being under water.

Regarding how fossil get into mountains, there is a thing called tectonic uplift and orogenesis, in which land is thrusted upward during mountain building events.

I believe it was aristotle who had the same thoughts. How could there be sea shells on top of a mountain? Surely flood waters covered the mountains if this were true. And then people learned about plate tectonics and were able to study and learn the mechanics of uplift, which better explains why some mountains have sea shells, and others do not.

As we see in the picture above, that random rock wasnt deposted at a weird angle like that. It was forced up by compressional forces from around it. And if you have a small sea, lets say that deposted the red layer in the diagram above, then that red layer with its sea shells, are lifted up into the air by compressional forces of plate tectonics.

And we know this is how it happens based on the angles at which rocks fracture and the temperatures and pressures by which they fracture, deform and move. It usually occurs in a very specific way involving what we call low angle thrust faults and may involve grades of metamorphism due to high temperatures and pressures.

Oh, and uplift can still be observed today in mountain chains like the himilayas where the mountains are growing larger year by year and rocks from below are being pushed higher and higher into the sky.

 

[Job 33:6]

If the earth is billions of years old why I have I not heard once heard of partially formed or developing fossils. It seems that we have fossils or otherwise preserved remains such as dried, frozen, etc. I do not recall once having seen evidence of a fossil being in the process of forming. If the old earth view on fossil formation was rue we would have evidence of modern animals starting to form fossils.

Please explain why fossils do not appear to be forming now.

And while you are at it, can you explain the Cambrian explosion and why there are no fossil records before that.

Fossils are still forming.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ification_of_Chalk_fossils_from_the_Chilterns

http://peabody.yale.edu/sites/defau...rtebrate-paleontology/ButtsPSP20FinalOPEN.pdf

You can just google partial permineralization or partial silification.

Fossilization is a process. Its not like either something is a fossil or its not, a fossil forms in stages.

 

[Job 33:6]

And while you are at it, can you explain the Cambrian explosion and why there are no fossil records before that.

Actually there are fossils before the cambrian explosion. There are arthropod trace fossils, sinotubulites, cloudina, sponges, brachiopods, burrows, mollusks and more. And these fossils have appears some 20 million to 60 million years prior to the cambrian explosion.

What is good to note though, is that many fossils that predate the explosion are actually soft bodied. And, soft bodied preservation is rare versus shelled body fossilization, because animals are easily destroyed by the environment if they dont have a shell. However, we still have soft bodied fossils anyway, and what these fossils basically tell us is that, it was the evolution of things like shells that made the cambrian explosion happen. Because, soft bodied life lived prior to the explosion, but it is the shelled life after the explosion that is recorded more readily by fossils.

So, its not that life simply appeared out of thin air, rather it was shelled life being more readily fossilized, versus non shelled life beforehand.

 

[Job 33:6]

Someone might further ask, well, why did life evolve shells then? Why did the cambrian explosion happen at that time? Well, this was also the time of the rifting of the supercontinent rodinia, along with the end of what some geologists propose was the largest ice age the planet had ever experienced. The thawing of ice at the end of the ice age, mixed with the rifting of rodinia and formation of temperate environments that are ideal for larger complex life, could have been what set the stage for the evolutionary arms race between predator and prey, which resulted in the evolution of shells, which increased rates of fossilization which further resulted in what appears to be an explosion of fossilized life.

 

[Jonathan Leo]

See that's what gets me there, a hundred million years? Why would it even be possible to identity a fern from a hundred million years ago? It's can it be possible to know anything about anything a hundred million years ago? That's an extraordinary claim to accept as fact, one that takes faith in the scientists who make the claim.

It’s all lies to coincide with their Big Bang theory. It’s part of Satan’s agenda to hide God. The truth is that truth will always stay true, whereas lies need to be recorded in order for them not to slip up. They do however slip up all the time, that is why they say one thing to be exact truth and 20 years later change it to something else.
Dark matter, matter?
What is the matter with these people lol.

Now if you look up operation fishbowl, you will see it was a huge operation of sending nuclear weapons into space. It’s funny because prior to that, admiral Byrd ( a retired navy explorer) went to see what was out in Antarctica. When he returned, a worldwide ban on anybody exploring was put in place by the worlds governments. They can’t make peace but all agree on that. Then operation fishbowl commenced.
Look it up bro, it will further your believe that God has us in a firmament and nothing leaves it or enters it. That goes for asteroids capable of destroying dinasours if there was such thing existed.
I mean, what benefit would you achieve by sending nukes into space?? It doesn’t make sense unless of course you are trying to destroy something!! Mmmmmmm

 

[Job 33:6]

Coelacanth - Wikipedia
believed to have gone extinct 66 million years ago. Rediscovered in 1938. Go figure.

Ginkgo biloba - Wikipedia
Fossils date to 270 million years ago? Still trucking....

Metasequoia glyptostroboides - Wikipedia The dawn redwood
Fossils found no younger than 150 million years old, still going

Just naming a few....but there are more feel free to check out
Living fossil - Wikipedia

Someone needs to recalibrate the clocks they are using to date these things. I mean I would feel kind of worn out after several million years...seeing as how humans supposedly evolved and this was only thousands of years ago.... just saying.

As i said before, i took the ceolacanth for example, these fish that are living today are not the same as ceolacanths of the past. Morphologically they are in fact different. Im not a plant guy, but this response is sufficient regarding animals.

 

[frater_domus]

Why is this even a debate? Does it matter whether the earth six thousand and six million years old? What matters is that God created it all and thus we must be good stewards and treasure His creation with gratitude and diligence.

My personal opinion is that there is no way of knowing how old the earth is when reading the bible. The bible is not a science book, it is a book that leads to salvation. Knowing how old the earth isn’t pertinent to salvation in my opinion, but knowing that God is sovereign and the creator is, which is why it is explicitely stated that all of creation is of God and nothing was created apart of Him.

 

[NobleMouse]

Why is this even a debate? Does it matter whether the earth six thousand and six million years old? What matters is that God created it all and thus we must be good stewards and treasure His creation with gratitude and diligence.

Good call-out! Why this matters and why it is debated is because the conventional evolutionary/billions-of-years paradigm teaches that God did not create life, there was no Adam or Eve, and if there was any kind of "original sin" it certainly didn't start with the first people, that death existed before sin, that there was no flood, etc... and Jesus' references to both creation and the flood brings His character into question as well as what His death on the cross really accomplished (being that there was really no clearly identifiable Adam/Eve or first sin), and ultimately the entire word of God is questionable. Not joking around here, literally millions upon millions of Atheists stand upon this in support of their rejecting God's word.

I really like your phrase: "Faith is all that matters" (as we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ) but would add that it greatly matters what our faith is in. I think everyone here would openly admit we are in need of a savior, that we are sinners, and that Jesus paid for the penalty of our sin, fully and completely, on the cross... but when it comes to believing that God created us the way we're told in the first book of His word, some stop there. If we say we have faith in only that which we can see (ie. what we're told by secular science... who wasn't there) then it is not faith that we have for faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

You are correct in that the Bible does not give a definitive age for the earth, but it is clear from the Genesis account and the lineages from Christ back to Adam (even if we very generously accounted for the possibility of a few generations missed), that we will never arrive at even 10's of thousands of years, let alone hundreds of thousands, millions or billions... it would be a gross misuse of scripture to believe the Bible supports such long ages. We cannot believe in both billions of years/evolution and the Bible... unless we deliberately cherry-pick the aspects of the Bible we want to believe in... like, "Oh, I'll take a helping of amazing grace.... I guess a helping of me being a sinner and a really small portion of loving my enemies, then the payment by Christ for sins and everlasting life with Him, yes I'll take a really big helping of that - that sounds great...", as if the Bible was some kind of salad bar.

God bless you for your faith!

 

[Innerfire89]

Old earth is one thing, although Scripture doesn't tell us absolutely how old the earth is there are still hints of a young earth, OEC employs the age gap theory and the day age theory, so instead of reading six days we end up with six ages. When we believing that the things I'm Scripture didn't actually happen in the first book then when and why do we stop when we read further?
If the heaven and earth weren't really created in six days, did God really flood the whole world? Was Moses really part the Red Sea? Was Jonah swallowed by a whale? Was Christ born of a virgin? Did he really raise from the dead?

Theistic evolution posses the same problems, it denies the literal messages of Scripture and cuts of its adherents from sound biblical teaching.

What concerns me the most is, what is our youth being taught?

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

If evolution were true, then we humans should have change ever so slightly by now, but we haven’t.
If evolution is real, it has no cut off point. Are you saying that evolution has stopped at us?? The way I see it is like God says it, were still selfish beings with hardened hearts.
It’s also a bit of a coincidence that God said we have dominion over all animals and we do. If evolution is survival of the fittest of any given spiecies, why is it since mans recordings from 6000 years ago, not 1 animal has tried to take over mankind?
Answer: Evolution is a lie

Not sure why you replied to me, but I'm not the one to talk to about evolution. I was refuting the older earth, evolution stuff myself with these examples.

 

[frater_domus]

@NobleMouse - Fair enough. I suppose one could come up with scenarios like earth existing before Adam and Eve, and whatnot... You see, there is a lot of things I do not know and speculating will not bring me closer to anything other than madness. To me, it matters that God is the creator and that the scripture is correct. I suppose I need to put it another way. I do not care if evolution is true or not and how it might fit into the scriptural picture should it be true. If we are not told how old the earth is in the bible and if Genesis is a brief about it as it is, maybe there is a reason for it or it is simply not important. To each his own, though. Just because it matters little to me, it does not mean it shouldn't matter to you. I am more of a 'here and now' person. History only matters to me if it can help me act in the present. Hence why I am mostly focused on growing in faith and leading a life where I am able to bear good fruits through the Spirit and thus a life pleasing to God. I worry not about the past (as in evolution vs Genesis), neither about when the Lord would return. I'd rather be the good servant that He will find doing His will upon his arrival (Matthew) as opposed to seeking answers to questions we are probably not meant to know. The secret things belong to God, and only to Him. You know what they say, unity in the essential, liberty in the non-essential

But yes, my main point is not to doubt the scripture. I do not. My point is that worrying about evolution is pointless, as it probably will not help us here and now. In fact, if people would just accept God as sovereign and His word as truth, a lot of question would not need to be asked anymore. But hey, once again, that's just me

To play the devil's advocate though: Maybe the bible is so focused on spiritual truths, because we can observe natural truths ourselves. We have our senses for a reason. That reason is obviously to glorify God, but who says that we can't glorify God by uncovering the secrets of nature that He created to see the magnificence of creation? In my opinion, there is no contradiction between nature and scripture, only in our faulty interpretation thereof. So someone, somewhere, got something wrong. We could point fingers, or we could just be patient until we know for sure

 

[NobleMouse]

Old earth is one thing, although Scripture doesn't tell us absolutely how old the earth is there are still hints of a young earth, OEC employs the age gap theory and the day age theory, so instead of reading six days we end up with six ages. When we believing that the things I'm Scripture didn't actually happen in the first book then when and why do we stop when we read further?
If the heaven and earth weren't really created in six days, did God really flood the whole world? Was Moses really part the Red Sea? Was Jonah swallowed by a whale? Was Christ born of a virgin? Did he really raise from the dead?

Theistic evolution posses the same problems, it denies the literal messages of Scripture and cuts of its adherents from sound biblical teaching.

What concerns me the most is, what is our youth being taught?

Agreed. The day-age and gap theories are mechanisms used to try reconciling what the Bible says to what we're told by secular science. Many studies have been done on the Hebrew text and experts in the field of linguistics indicate that syntactically the text does not give rise for interpreting as allegory or a poetic form and strongly supports an interpretation of ordinary days with the added context of "evening and morning" in affirmation of this. "Yom" is "day" and in the same sense, if I say "back in the day" we all know I'm talking about a time period in the past, but I say "and then evening followed by morning of day two" we all know I'm talking about the conclusion of the 2nd day of some process involving multiple ordinary days that have mornings and evenings.

I thought I'd share various online resources on the subject that you can add to your library if you haven't already come across them:

G. F. Hasel - The "Days" of Creation in Genesis 1
Is Genesis Poetry or Historic Narrative
https://isgenesishistory.com/wp-con...rviews-Steve-Boyd-at-Hebrew-Union-College.pdf

There are two kinds of revelation of truth: special revelation and general (sometimes I've seen called "natural") revelation. Special revelation is through the Holy Spirit, through God's word, etc... where general revelation are truths "generally" discerned through natural means like observation, logical reasoning, etc...

When a theory is presented that is from general revelation and (here's the key) originates from general revelation (meaning there is no clear connection to the word of God) and contradicts the word of God (ie, ToE), then every single time I'm going to side with the word of God. I suspect you and I are alike in that we are not "YEC's" because it is our desire that the earth be young, but instead we believe the word of God is true and it just happens that God's word gives many indications towards a young earth. If the word of God gave many indications pointing to an old earth, we'd be OEC's.

 

[Andy centek]

This is point out a few thing that make macro evolution and old earth look like nonsense.

Jellyfish fossil imprints.
Millions of years ago jellyfish washed up on shore, because the soil was so full of micro organisms it was gooey and preserved the imprints. I don't buy it! Jellyfish that a almost nothing to begin with, rot into nothing within a day at most if not just swept back into the ocean. They weigh nothing. And am I supposed to believe that if the earth exited millions of years ago, that anyone could know anything about what it was like? Try a world wide flood caused the jellies to be covered with mud.

Turtles, how did they evolve to have shells? Shells that protect them from predators? But hey, what's the rush, take a couple million years, you're only be hunted to extinction!

Giraffes.
They have a special flap in the arteries of thier neck to reduce the blood flow to their brains when they bend down. If they didn't, then they would die of a massive brain hemorrhage.

Living fossils.
Some are supposed to be tens of millions of years old, but haven't evolved into something else.

Dino egg fossils.
Found in the higher parts of the Grand canyon, the fossilized eggs just sat there all safe and cozy for millions? Billions of years?

Blood clotting.
Anyone use blood thinners, a slight touch and there's a new bruise, a small cut can't stop bleeding on it's own. Imagine if your blood didn't clot at all, you couldn't survive a day. But the ability for blood to clot took a long, long time to work itself out.

I won't even get into how the moon is moving away from the earth and the effects it would have caused trillions of years ago.

This thread is mostly satirical, but still truthful, look these things up for yourselves to see just how laughable secular science is.

 

[Andy centek]

Interfire89

Isn't it amazing how correct science is and how wrong MOST of mankind is! Indeed, there has been life on this Earth for millions of years. Also, Adam and Eve were not the first people on this Earth, in the land which they were put into. How did Cain find a wife in the land of the Nodites if Adam and Eve were the only ones on Earth? Science is indeed much more correct than most people who talk of One set of people being here first.
The bible is truly correct when the contents are keep where they belong, in their proper time and place. Not to mention the lack of understanding of figures of speech which are used extensively in the Bible Scriptures, and ignored by most.
The word beginning is another bad choice for the starting of the creation mentioned in Genesis. At the start is a better choice. At the start of that creation, and not, the creating. That creation being the start of what was to become God's chosen People, Israel.

Andy Centek

 

[Jonathan Leo]

Not sure why you replied to me, but I'm not the one to talk to about evolution. I was refuting the older earth, evolution stuff myself with these examples.

I meant to respond to the other person, I’m sorry lol
My bad

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

I meant to respond to the other person, I’m sorry lol
My bad

Its cool. Appreciate the zeal though.

 

[NobleMouse]

@NobleMouse - Fair enough. I suppose one could come up with scenarios like earth existing before Adam and Eve, and whatnot... You see, there is a lot of things I do not know and speculating will not bring me closer to anything other than madness. To me, it matters that God is the creator and that the scripture is correct. I suppose I need to put it another way. I do not care if evolution is true or not and how it might fit into the scriptural picture should it be true. If we are not told how old the earth is in the bible and if Genesis is a brief about it as it is, maybe there is a reason for it or it is simply not important. To each his own, though. Just because it matters little to me, it does not mean it shouldn't matter to you. I am more of a 'here and now' person. History only matters to me if it can help me act in the present. Hence why I am mostly focused on growing in faith and leading a life where I am able to bear good fruits through the Spirit and thus a life pleasing to God. I worry not about the past (as in evolution vs Genesis), neither about when the Lord would return. I'd rather be the good servant that He will find doing His will upon his arrival (Matthew) as opposed to seeking answers to questions we are probably not meant to know. The secret things belong to God, and only to Him. You know what they say, unity in the essential, liberty in the non-essential

But yes, my main point is not to doubt the scripture. I do not. My point is that worrying about evolution is pointless, as it probably will not help us here and now. In fact, if people would just accept God as sovereign and His word as truth, a lot of question would not need to be asked anymore. But hey, once again, that's just me

To play the devil's advocate though: Maybe the bible is so focused on spiritual truths, because we can observe natural truths ourselves. We have our senses for a reason. That reason is obviously to glorify God, but who says that we can't glorify God by uncovering the secrets of nature that He created to see the magnificence of creation? In my opinion, there is no contradiction between nature and scripture, only in our faulty interpretation thereof. So someone, somewhere, got something wrong. We could point fingers, or we could just be patient until we know for sure

Agreed, special revelation (His word) is from God and general revelation (what we observe) is also from God and the two will not contradict. Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective on this - much appreciated brother!

 

[NobleMouse]

Interfire89

Isn't it amazing how correct science is and how wrong MOST of mankind is! Indeed, there has been life on this Earth for millions of years. Also, Adam and Eve were not the first people on this Earth, in the land which they were put into. How did Cain find a wife in the land of the Nodites if Adam and Eve were the only ones on Earth? Science is indeed much more correct than most people who talk of One set of people being here first.
The bible is truly correct when the contents are keep where they belong, in their proper time and place. Not to mention the lack of understanding of figures of speech which are used extensively in the Bible Scriptures, and ignored by most.
The word beginning is another bad choice for the starting of the creation mentioned in Genesis. At the start is a better choice. At the start of that creation, and not, the creating. That creation being the start of what was to become God's chosen People, Israel.

Andy Centek

Hi Andy, you bring up a good point about Cain. Genesis 5:3-4 indicates that Adam fathered other children besides the ones mentioned directly by name, so we can infer that Cain would have married a sister or possibly even a niece:

Where Did Cain Get His Wife?

 

[Innerfire89]

Interfire89

Isn't it amazing how correct science is and how wrong MOST of mankind is! Indeed, there has been life on this Earth for millions of years. Also, Adam and Eve were not the first people on this Earth, in the land which they were put into. How did Cain find a wife in the land of the Nodites if Adam and Eve were the only ones on Earth? Science is indeed much more correct than most people who talk of One set of people being here first.
The bible is truly correct when the contents are keep where they belong, in their proper time and place. Not to mention the lack of understanding of figures of speech which are used extensively in the Bible Scriptures, and ignored by most.
The word beginning is another bad choice for the starting of the creation mentioned in Genesis. At the start is a better choice. At the start of that creation, and not, the creating. That creation being the start of what was to become God's chosen People, Israel.

Andy Centek

Adam and Eve were the first created, they obviously had female children which can marriered or perhaps a niece from his brother Abel, women weren't usually included into the geniologies of Scripture. We don't know exactly how old Cain was when he married either.

I see in no way that the creation week was the start of Israel.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Affirmation of evolution is the view that the Bible is errant.