Light years is a time measure

[dad]

Those giants were dinosaurs!

I have wondered about that as a possibility.

 

[dad]

Yes, and my point was, where are your skeletons of these giants?

Right, and my point is that man could not fossilize in the former state, and the pre flood was the former state.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Right, and my point is that man could not fossilize in the former state, and the pre flood was the former state.

You could just say they didn't fossilize. Few environments are conducive to fossilization, so you could say that, for whatever reason, the kind of environment the flood created was not conducive to forming fossils, thus limiting the fossil record blank to only a short, plausible amount of time rather than saying that nothing could fossilize prior to the flood.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There is a reason you don't find a fossil everywhere you dig.

 

[dad]

You could just say they didn't fossilize.

Yes, I could. However some creatures could fossilize. So I usually have to spend a few moments being clear.

Few environments are conducive to fossilization, so you could say that, for whatever reason, the kind of environment the flood created was not conducive to forming fossils, thus limiting the fossil record blank to only a short, plausible amount of time rather than saying that nothing could fossilize prior to the flood.

No. That I could not say, because the former state went beyond the mere year of the flood. The whole time from creatiion till probably Peleg who lived maybe a few centuries after the flood was a different state most likely. In that whole time man and most animals plants and fish could not leave fossil remains. The fossils we do have are the ones that were able to fossilize.

 

[dad]

There is a reason you don't find a fossil everywhere you dig.

I agree. If man and most life on earth could not fossilize, we should expect exactly that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I agree. If man and most life on earth could not fossilize, we should expect exactly that.

Get yourself thrown in a tar pit after you die, you are almost guaranteed to become a fossil! I have considered asking for that in my will.

 

[RealityCheck]

If time existed and days before the earth was created, and at creation and in creation week, then it sure can't be something man made up.

You didn't answer my question. You said that "time existed from the start" and I'm asking, the start of what? "Start" only has meaning if time already exists. So time can't exist "from the start" because that would imply time existing within time.

 

[RealityCheck]

Right, and my point is that man could not fossilize in the former state, and the pre flood was the former state.

"Could not"? What precisely about the structure of these giants prevented fossilization?

 

[pgp_protector]

"Could not"? What precisely about the structure of these giants prevented fossilization?

Existence?

 

[RealityCheck]

Existence?

Now now, I'm playing along with the guy in the fishbowl... no need to jump to the right answer just yet.

 

[dad]

You didn't answer my question. You said that "time existed from the start" and I'm asking, the start of what?

Start of anything that involved man.

"Start" only has meaning if time already exists.

Right, and God existed before man did obviously, and He did stuff in units of time. Therefore time did not begin with man, and could not be a mere mental construct of man.

So time can't exist "from the start" because that would imply time existing within time.

No. There are many starts. The angels had a start. That was not at the same time as man was it?

 

[dad]

Get yourself thrown in a tar pit after you die, you are almost guaranteed to become a fossil! I have considered asking for that in my will.

The problem is that there is more needed than tar to fossilize something. We need atoms doing stuff a certain way, for example. That means we need laws. There is also the issue of what organisms existed to specialize in disposing of certain life forms in the past.


"Are other organisms going to destroy the body before it can be preserved?"


Untitled Document[SIZE=+2]

[/SIZE] Then there is the issue of when most tar came to exist...but let's not get complicated.[SIZE=+2]

[/SIZE]

 

[dad]

"Could not"? What precisely about the structure of these giants prevented fossilization?

Lions, most animals, man and many other life forms could not fossilize, not just giants. The exact reasons we, in this state do not know.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Lions, most animals, man and many other life forms could not fossilize, not just giants. The exact reasons we, in this state do not know.

There are the mummies of Egypt and many examples of fossilized humans dating back to about 10,000 years or so, so humans can fossilize. Also, tar pits are just gold mines for fossils, as nearly any animal that gets trapped in them fossilizes. Don't you dare try to ruin my dream, tar pits work so well because they form environments that are difficult for bacteria that decay flesh to survive in, and the tar coats the bodies, effectively preserving them.

 

[dad]

There are the mummies of Egypt and many examples of fossilized humans dating back to about 10,000 years or so, so humans can fossilize.

No. The dates are wrong. They go back maybe 4300 years or so. You dates all repeat all depend on assuming this present state and it's decay existed in the former nature. That is not true or proven in any small way whatsoever. So, no, we have no former state fossils.

Also, tar pits are just gold mines for fossils, as nearly any animal that gets trapped in them fossilizes. Don't you dare try to ruin my dream, tar pits work so well because they form environments that are difficult for bacteria that decay flesh to survive in, and the tar coats the bodies, effectively preserving them.

The trick there is to date the tar pit not the animals in it! I think it is safe to say post flood.

 

[RealityCheck]

No. The dates are wrong. They go back maybe 4300 years or so. You dates all repeat all depend on assuming this present state and it's decay existed in the former nature. That is not true or proven in any small way whatsoever. So, no, we have no former state fossils.

Yes, that all has been proven. Your refusal to acknowledge evidence that contradicts your fishbowl view of the bible is irrelevant to everyone except those in your fishbowl... namely you.

The bible as interpreted by young earth creationists is wrong. Mountains of evidence that is readily available contradicts the young earth concept. The fact that you won't accept that is irrelevant. Unless and until you can actually provide evidence that all the other evidence is wrong, you're just wasting your time trying to convince others that you're sane and you should be taken seriously.

And just as a hint... pointing to the bible and claiming thatsvthe evidence you need will do nothing to advance your case.

Not that i think you're seriously trying to convince anyone that your ideas are credible. You have all the marks of a very dedicated poe.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No. The dates are wrong. They go back maybe 4300 years or so. You dates all repeat all depend on assuming this present state and it's decay existed in the former nature. That is not true or proven in any small way whatsoever. So, no, we have no former state fossils.



The trick there is to date the tar pit not the animals in it! I think it is safe to say post flood.

Unless god purposely sped up the rate of radioactive carbon 14 decay, I am pretty sure that cave people did not exist that recently. Or is the devil really going to be brought up? Besides, the bible is roughly 2-3 thousand years old, says the world is about 6 thousand years old at the time it was written, so that would make the world now about 8-9 thousand years old, since the age of the world has increased since it had been written down.

 

[[serious]]

No. The dates are wrong. They go back maybe 4300 years or so. You dates all repeat all depend on assuming this present state and it's decay existed in the former nature. That is not true or proven in any small way whatsoever. So, no, we have no former state fossils.



The trick there is to date the tar pit not the animals in it! I think it is safe to say post flood.

Wrong, centuries are a quantity measure since we don't know if numbers worked the same way that long ago!

 

[RealityCheck]

Wrong, centuries are a quantity measure since we don't know if numbers worked the same way that long ago!

That's right, only a person wearing a fishbowl would think that century has always meant 100. Who knows? A few thousand years ago it could have meant million!! Or billion! You in the fishbowl are so limited in your thinking to think that century is a concept that has always been the same.