Pangea in the Old Testament?

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,232
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,063.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You understand what I meant by "Yes, I realize I'm oversimplyfing?" Right?

If you are, then you would understand that the absolute age of a rock really doesn't matter. But rather the culmination of events recorded in rocks, such as the walking dinosaur, collectively blow young earth creationism out of the water, by a long shot.

For example, imagine if we have dinosaur foot tracks on a layer. And above that layer more tracks of another dinosaur. We would then logically conclude that time passed between dinosaur A and dinosaur B and their spatial journeys.

But imagine further if we had 100 layers of dinosaur tracks. Or even 1000. Or even 1 million.

This is the state of modern geology. We have observed and accumulated literally millions of sequential events, stratigraphically above one another. Events in which there is no feasible explanation for how they could occur within 6,000 years.

So it's not a matter of simply making a baseless claim about a rocks age. Rather it's an addition of countless events which logically establishes an old earth.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,232
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,063.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
@BroRoyVa79

So long as you accept that dinosaurs did in fact live and did in fact walk across the land over some period of time, you have already accepted the very science that proves an old earth.

To reject an old earth, is to logically believe that perhaps the dinosaur walked in fast forward. Or that glaciers traverse the land at hundreds of miles per hour, or that continents speed across the oceans at multiple feet per day etc.

It isn't about randomly assigning giant numbers to rocks. It's about considering the millions of events recorded in the rock record, and asking yourself how long it would take for these events to sequentially unfold.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,232
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,063.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"We can see dinosaur tracks and conclude dinosaurs must exist. "

And if we see burrows, we can conclude that animals must have had time to burrow.

If we see glacial moraines and striations, we can conclude that glaciers existed and moved across the land.

If we see sequential layers of deposited volcanic ash next to a volcano, we can conclude that the volcano erupted multiple times.

Etc.

And if these features are interwoven, if an angular unconformity is found between the tracks, or if the striations are found between the palm trees, or if the mammalian burrows are found between the fish feeding traces...

We can only logically fit so many events into 6,000 years. 6,000 years just isn't sufficient. Nor even 6,000,000. Nor even, 60,000,000.
 
Upvote 0

BroRoyVa79

Active Member
Aug 16, 2018
252
124
Virginia
✟18,621.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
@KomatiiteBIF

You assume Uniformitarianism and not Catastrophism (Global Flood) as the mechanism for much of what you say and thus you match up with my statement generally about taking rates of TODAY and extrapolating those to YESTERYEAR. Which leads to my interpretation of data statement as well.

Since I'm ready to turn the topic back over to Zachm, I'll leave these to show that Biblical Creationists deal with relative dating, the layers, etc.

Forgot the links:
Sedimentary rocks and the geologic time scale - creation.com
The case of the missing geologic time - creation.com
Much supposed geological time missing from strata - creation.com
John K. Reed - creation.com
Andrew A Snelling - creation.com
Biostratigraphy
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,232
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,063.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
@KomatiiteBIF

You assume Uniformitarianism and not Catastrophism (Global Flood) as the mechanism for much of what you say and thus you match up with my statement generally about taking rates of TODAY and extrapolating those to YESTERYEAR. Which leads to my interpretation of data statement as well.

Since I'm ready to turn the topic back over to Zachm, I'll leave these to show that Biblical Creationists deal with relative dating, the layers, etc.

Forgot the links:
Sedimentary rocks and the geologic time scale - creation.com
The case of the missing geologic time - creation.com
Much supposed geological time missing from strata - creation.com
John K. Reed - creation.com
Andrew A Snelling - creation.com

You assume Uniformitarianism and not Catastrophism (Global Flood) as the mechanism for much of what you

But of course, catastrophism cannot account for the features I've described.

For example, how could catastrophism produce the green River formation?

There is no logical way that it could. No more could catastrophism explain how complex burrow networks, nests with eggs, foot tracks and feeding traces are found throughout the entirety of the geologic column.

What kind of catastrophic event would not even destroy a nest made of brittle twigs that make up nests?

First Evidence That Dinosaurs Nested In Colonies: 15 Nests And 50 Eggs Discovered

And yet we are to believe that this very land survived unscathed while entire mountains buckled in physics defying ways?

We are to believe these eggs remain unscathed, while entire formations were metamorphosed and melted. Solid rock, melted...while eggs remain, as if nothing unusual was going on.

You claim that uniformitarianism is an assumption.

It isn't an assumption, it is a derived conclusion.

300 years ago proponents of catastrophism attempted to justify their beliefs by deriving conclusions from the same evidence.

They failed, and their position vanished from the scientific community much like beliefs in alchemy, and astrology, and other concepts that logically do not make any sense.

Your ideas are hidden behind random links of unjustified claims.


Here are my own words. I could hide behind mountains of technical research papers, published by geologists around the world. But I'd rather just speak for myself in simple terms.

Old Earth Geology Part 3 (Green River Formation)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Zachm531

Active Member
Apr 25, 2019
341
129
New York
✟44,746.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Or, as early Christians realized, it is not a literal history. The text itself tells us that.



Evolution is just God's creation. You're willing to admit that God creates living things, but you refuse to accept the way He does it.

Set your pride aside, and let Him be God.
Set your preconceived notion aside and let Gods holy inspired word speak for itself without adding to it.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You assume Uniformitarianism and not Catastrophism (Global Flood)

Uniformitarianism does not mean that there are no catastrophic events. The geologic history of the Earth is one of long periods of gradual change, with occasional discontinous events. Some, like the Chixulub event, had world-wide consequences. Most do not. There is no evidence for a world wide flood.

as the mechanism for much of what you say and thus you match up with my statement generally about taking rates of TODAY and extrapolating those to YESTERYEAR.

Not necessary. For example, tidal rhythmites and lake varves preserve information about rates of change hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. Would you like to learn how we know?
 
Upvote 0

BroRoyVa79

Active Member
Aug 16, 2018
252
124
Virginia
✟18,621.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Couple things for both of you so we can put this to rest and seriously move on, but I suspect neither of you won't.

First things first, presuppositions. You two bring the presupposition that Old Earth interpretation of the data (what's in nature) is correct. I don't, I bring the presupposition that God's testimony in the Bible is correct. Both views influence the interpretation of the data. The problem for me with your side is that it is primarily pushed by anti-supernaturalists, anti-Bible people, and anti-Theists to promote a worldview without God. Its 18th-century - early 19th-century origins are also riddled in this philosophy as well.

So in other words, your authority = man's interpretation of what he finds in nature.
My authority = God and the witness of His actions in Scripture in regard to nature.

Moving on to the text and what it actually says, as in what is written there.
In Genesis 1 the Hebrew word for "day" when used with a cardinal number and the phrase "evening and morning" means a twenty-four hour time period. Thus, reading the Bible as it is written indicates a Seven 24 hour ordinary day Creation week. Anything else is adding to the text (Barbarian). I don't care who did it, Aquinas, Origen, whoever, it's adding to the text. Otherwise taking it how it is written is appreciating the text and embracing what Jesus, the Apostles, Ancient Jews thought. Even secular Jews such as Josephus embraced this reality. Thus, anything that chimes against this, I'm going to look at it funny regardless if it's birthed out of scientific consensus or not.

So trying to say Biblical Creation (YEC) is a new thing is demonstrably false (Barbarian) and hypocritical given how Old Earth Creationists love to try to change what Genesis 1-11 says or try to assert that it's anything but history. That's the actual new thing.

Third, you can believe what you want to believe but to act like it's the end all be all of the facts and not interpretation of the evidence and nature is a misrepresentation, from my perspective, of your beliefs and where they stem from.

You assume Uniformitarianism and not Catastrophism (Global Flood) as the mechanism for much of what you

I assume the Flood had a hand in what we see in the Earth today because I embrace the Bible's testimony about events we are unable to observe since we were not there to do so.

But of course, catastrophism cannot account for the features I've described.

So says you through your uniformitarian lens.

For example, how could catastrophism produce the green River formation?

There is no logical way that it could. No more could catastrophism explain how complex burrow networks, nests with eggs, foot tracks and feeding traces are found throughout the entirety of the geologic column.

You are free to venture out there and discover what Biblical Creationists propose about this. Have at it, I assure you they disagree with you, just as I do. For instance, Michael Oard and John Whitmore debate the origins of the Green River Formation in the Journal of Creation 20 (1) from 2006 and whether it was formed in the Flood or during post-Flood deposition.

What kind of catastrophic event would not even destroy a nest made of brittle twigs that make up nests?

First Evidence That Dinosaurs Nested In Colonies: 15 Nests And 50 Eggs Discovered

And yet we are to believe that this very land survived unscathed while entire mountains buckled in physics defying ways?

We are to believe these eggs remain unscathed, while entire formations were metamorphosed and melted. Solid rock, melted...while eggs remain, as if nothing unusual was going on.

These nests are fossilized in a layer so it's obvious something happened. Not sure what the problem is here in regard to a post-Flood catastrophe or The Flood being a cause for this unless you want to assume it had to happen gradually, slowly, over a long period of time.

If God is the one causing the Flood, has His hands on the Ark and wants the world to survive so Noah and his family can repopulate mankind then why are we only looking for a natural explanation of how a worldwide catastrophe could occur outside of the natural laws we are constricted with. God created those laws, why are you trying to constrict Him with His creation? Not making sense.

You claim that uniformitarianism is an assumption.

It isn't an assumption, it is a derived conclusion.

It's an assumption. There's no observational evidence you can provide to tell me that a rock layer or the combined layers are as old as claimed. Sure, you can say making a conclusion from relative dating and creatures buried within the layers gives you a reason to believe they are as old as they are, but even then you're making assumptions. You're assuming that because the layers were laid down in order that they were done so in a slow, gradual, way as you see it done today. That's an assumption because you were not there to observe it. Nor do you have eye witness testimony of the observation.

Equally, there is no observable evidence that you can use as justified proof to tell me I have to accept the present is the key to the past and that rates today, mechanisms today, observations today should be applied to unobservable events of the past.

Counting the time of activity of creatures etc. is also assumptive because it's done through the underlying lens of uniformitarianism.

I can walk up on a bicycle in the middle of the road, for example, and the only observational data I have is that the bicycle is there. I can, of course, start to deduce things, but I do so under the danger of making assumptions without information to the contrary. For instance, I can deduce from the way the bicycle is lying on the road that someone may have tossed it down and ran away at rapid speed, but I have no observational information to back that claim up.

It's just an assumption, astute as it may be, it's still an assumption made without all of the proper information to make a definitive deduction. If there are other things about the bicycle, say the wheel is damaged, I can observe that fact, the wheel is damaged and then make assumptions about how it got damaged, astute as they may be, they are still assumptions made with a lack of observational evidence to back them up. I can even count steps from the bicycle to the curb and deduce how long it took in human steps for the rider to ride it in the middle of the street and leave it there, but I can't know for certain the speed at which the rider rode the bicycle themselves because I wasn't there to time them, etc.

Edited to add: To be clear here, my emphasis on observation and assumptions is due to the claim that "science says this" since science works through observation. I have no problem accepting deductive reasoning because it's a method to gain knowledge as well. However, without observational data (actually witnessing it, actually experimenting it not something like it, but experimenting it, etc. which are all impossible when dealing with deep time), that's what it is an inference.

Edited to add: Nor do I have a problem with forensic science.

300 years ago proponents of catastrophism attempted to justify their beliefs by deriving conclusions from the same evidence.

They failed, and their position vanished from the scientific community much like beliefs in alchemy, and astrology, and other concepts that logically do not make any sense.

I disagree. I think they were duped and lied to by anti-Genesis proponents like Lyell and others who had an ax to grind against the Bible and didn't want it to be the leading authority in interpreting nature like it was at the time.

To compare Biblical Creation with alchemy and astrology is an attempt to poison the well and a logical fallacy.

Your ideas are hidden behind random links of unjustified claims.

Your opinion. Fine to have it, but it's in error. I started off an Old Earther trying to read billions of years into the text until I started to allow the testimony and revelation of God through Bible to be my authority and then that opened the door for me to accept the theories of Biblical Creationists in regard to what we see in nature and how it compares up with the Bible if I wanted to think about it from a current year science theory or provide potential things to give people to think about from an apologetic perspective when I talk about Genesis with them.

Notice how Creation.com, ICR, AiG, et al are not my authority. They're supplemental to my authority and to add, all Biblical Creationists readily admit that their theories are not scripture and can change and they debate each other and have different views on this and that, but sustain the position that Genesis 1-11 is history and foundational to the rest of the Bible.

However, I can easily say the same for you. Simply because your position rests comfortably in the bosom of scientific consensus does not make it justified. As I said, it is impossible to observe these claims to be fact since no one was there in the ancient past to be an eyewitness (other than God) and taking things that we see today and applying them to the past with such hubris is dubious. Also, again, geocentrism was a consensus at one time along with other things.

Edited to add: No, I don't see Biblical Creation this way because the Bible advocates propositional truths in the absolute. Either God created the world or He didn't and how can you trust anything else in scripture if He didn't. Either God created the world the way He said, or He didn't and how can you trust anything else in scripture if He didn't. Yes, I know plenty of Christians dance around this quagmire if they don't embrace Genesis as foundational history and I look at them funny.

Also, my argument this whole time has remained consistent as I have never ventured into an evidential tit for tat with either one of you. My position has remained that you embrace the origin theories of fallible man and then try to bring them to the Bible and that I find fallible man's origin theories suspect.

Here are my own words. I could hide behind mountains of technical research papers, published by geologists around the world. But I'd rather just speak for myself in simple terms.

Old Earth Geology Part 3 (Green River Formation)

You're merely providing an interpretation of what you see. There many problems with your interpretations. No, I'm not looking for a back and forth here because I've been around long enough, lurking and posting, to know it's a waste of time to do.

Suffice to say, you believe what you believe through the lens of uniformitarianism, I and many others do not see that lens as an adequate way of understanding nature's revelations. Time to move on, seriously. Agree to disagree and step down from the high horse.

Uniformitarianism does not mean that there are no catastrophic events. The geologic history of the Earth is one of long periods of gradual change, with occasional discontinous events. Some, like the Chixulub event, had world-wide consequences. Most do not. There is no evidence for a world wide flood.

Neo-Catastrophism still has uniformitarian ideas of time as its problem. Sure, they embrace catastrophes, but they do so with deep time and a lack of observational evidence for said deep time. No, I'm not looking into getting into a tit for tat, the same thing I said to KomatiteBIF applies to you. I been around lurking and posting long enough to know it's pointless. Has nothing to do with being afraid or admitting defeat or admitting a lack of theoretical positions from my position.

Not necessary. For example, tidal rhythmites and lake varves preserve information about rates of change hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. Would you like to learn how we know?

The same "present is key to the past" assumptions are usually used for these when it comes to rates. Two quick examples to show my point from secular sources. The first is highlighted from the abstract since I can't link journal articles I access through my alumni account:

"Hourly modern tides were analyzed as event series to simulate the late Pleistocene rhythmites, and they were truncated at different reference levels to simulate intertidal rhythmites, whereby relative position within the tidal frame was used as a threshold for lamina deposition."
"Large tidal ranges result in relatively thick deposits whereas smaller tidal ranges result in thinner deposits. In semidiurnal tidal systems, as many as four lamina may be deposited in 24 h. Within a neap– spring–neap cycle of a modern semidiurnal tidal system, an average of 28 dominant current events (lamina) can be recorded. In pure diurnal systems, however, only 14 dominant current events occur in a neap–spring–neap cycle. In a modern mixed tidal system, the number of dominant current events is between 28 and 14 within a neap–spring cycle. Thus, plotting of successive thickness in a lamina number vs. thickness plot provides us valuable information regarding the nature of the palaeotidal system (cf. de Boer et al., 1989; see Section 3.3 for explanation).

Ancient tidal rhythmite records are commonly incomplete. Incomplete data sets may result in several ways."

Again, not linked for a tit for tat, but to show my position on this isn't unreasonable. Time to move along now.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: MrsFoundit
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,232
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,063.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"Counting the time of activity of creatures etc. is also assumptive because it's done through the underlying lens of uniformitarianism."

What other lense is there in regards to the rates at which an animal can walk or feed or burrow?

Is there some sort of catastrophic lense in which animals defy physics and move at the speed of sound?

The same goes for glacial striations, angular unconformities, deposition of layers of the green River formation.

These events can only logically occur so fast.

Regarding the green River formation, I've pointed out instances in which there are foot tracks between layers.

You can deny an old earth all you want, but logically you're incapable explaining what we see. And that's the bottom line. Your ideas are contradictory to observed creation.
 
Upvote 0

BroRoyVa79

Active Member
Aug 16, 2018
252
124
Virginia
✟18,621.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
"Counting the time of activity of creatures etc. is also assumptive because it's done through the underlying lens of uniformitarianism."

What other lense is there in regards to the rates at which an animal can walk or feed or burrow?

You're locked into uniformitarianism. You assume what you're seeing isn't something else, I dunno, FOR EXAMPLE, (caps for emphasis) like these animals trying to escape a catastrophe. (Example due to lacking specific examples to work with. Edited to add: And no, I'm not looking to get into the weeds about it either, got other things to do.)

Point being, back to my bicycle analogy. I can ride fast, slow, real slow, or I can walk fast, slow, real slow. Animals can walk, fast, slow, real slow. I'm sure they can burrow at different rates of speed as well depending on their motivation or the situation. Were you there to measure any of the rates they actually did these things at. that. time. Get it? Nope, you weren't.

You can deny an old earth all you want, but logically you're incapable explaining what we see. And that's the bottom line. Your ideas are contradictory to observed creation.

You mean my ideas are contrary to what you interpret about observed creation.

Edited to add: But I love how out of all of that you cherry-pick one thing to fight against.

Time to move on.
 
Upvote 0

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟33,276.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"I wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding evolution as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives, is not so much your arguments against it, as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders." C. S. Lewis

I am not so inclined to think the science as we have it is all wrong, the question for me is, when we are talking about billions of years, how sure is it possible to be? Is our best, based on the evidence, really enough?
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,232
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,063.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"You assume what you're seeing isn't something else, I dunno, FOR EXAMPLE, (caps for emphasis) like these animals trying to escape a catastrophe."

If there are feeding traces observed, then it is of no surprise that I conclude that animals were not fleeing catastrophy.

When birds flee, they also tend to fly, rather than awkwardly walking around in circles.

We can also tell if animals are walking or running based on the spacing and impressions of their tracks.

Also, we have burrow networks of all shapes and sizes throughout the geologic column.

Massive caves in southern Brazil are actually ancient ground sloth burrows

The idea of trying to escape catastrophy would imply that animals were in a hurry. But the fossils we have often suggest otherwise. And burrows suggest long, time consuming operations (such as those linked above).

Do tell me how these animals were allegedly fleeing, but for some odd reason were actually just casually walking around...

Do explain how mountains were being pushed around and rocks metamorphosed under extreme pressures and temperatures...while animals were otherwise casually burrowing or feeding or wandering around.

Entire continents buckled and crumbled...while delicate nests with eggs remain unscathed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,232
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,063.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"You mean my ideas are contrary to what you interpret about observed creation."

Observation isn't a matter of interpretation. The physics is what it is.

Here is one for you. After a two second Google search:

RETRODEFORMATION OF CARBONIFEROUS TRACE FOSSILS FROM THE NARRAGANSETT BASIN, UNITED STATES, USING RAINDROP IMPRINTS AND BEDDING-CLEAVAGE INTERSECTION LINEATION AS STRAIN MARKERS

In the above article is description of a common practice in fossils are structurally deformed.

Meaning that the animals originally lived, acted, and then later in time, their tracks lithified and we're we'n deformed.

Logically this cannot happen in any other order. And if we have fossils deformed in orogenic processes, it's pretty straight forward to conclude a gradual deformation of features, as opposed to catastrophism.

YECism can't explain the quantity of these features that we see, nor can yecism explain the features themselves without defying all known chemistry and physics. But uniformitarianism explains them quite simply and well.

Your young earth beliefs suggest the simultaneous occurance of ice ages and rock metamorphosis and life casually walking around, burrowing, feeding and nesting, practically in simultaneous times.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BroRoyVa79

Active Member
Aug 16, 2018
252
124
Virginia
✟18,621.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
"You mean my ideas are contrary to what you interpret about observed creation."

Observation isn't a matter of interpretation. The physics is what it is.

You're only observing the fossils and the layers, everything else from that is an astute assumption. Don't know how else to say this.

The fossils and layers don't tell you rates of time or anything else other than there are rock layers here and dead things in them unless you infer other things into it. Don't know how else to say this.

Time to move on, really.

Here is one for you. After a two second Google search:

RETRODEFORMATION OF CARBONIFEROUS TRACE FOSSILS FROM THE NARRAGANSETT BASIN, UNITED STATES, USING RAINDROP IMPRINTS AND BEDDING-CLEAVAGE INTERSECTION LINEATION AS STRAIN MARKERS

In the above article is description of a common practice in fossils are structurally deformed.

Meaning that the animals originally lived, acted, and then later in time, their tracks lithified and we're we'n deformed.

Logically this cannot happen in any other order. And if we have fossils deformed in orogenic processes, it's pretty straight forward to conclude a gradual deformation of features, as opposed to catastrophism.

YECism can't explain the quantity of these features that we see, nor can yecism explain the features themselves without defying all known chemistry and physics. But uniformitarianism explains them quite simply and well.

Your young earth beliefs suggest the simultaneous occurance of ice ages and rock metamorphosis and life casually walking around, burrowing, feeding and nesting, practically in simultaneous times.

Why are you trying to force Biblical Creationists who don't belive that Uniformitarinism is adequate to look at things through a Uniformitarian framework? You're not making sense. Move on.

You make bold claims based on uniformitarian interpretation of the data, that's it and then grandstand on that claim. That's not impressive. I don't know how else to say this.

Time to move on.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,232
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,063.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

BroRoyVa79

Active Member
Aug 16, 2018
252
124
Virginia
✟18,621.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
"I wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding evolution as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives, is not so much your arguments against it, as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders." C. S. Lewis

I am not so inclined to think the science as we have it is all wrong, the question for me is, when we are talking about billions of years, how sure is it possible to be? Is our best, based on the evidence, really enough?

I wouldn't say it's all wrong, but I'd say most in the secular scientific community have fooled themselves into thinking they are not working from a presuppositional interpretation of the data. The evidence is the evidence, but it's the interpretation of said evidence that is often the problem.
 
Upvote 0

BroRoyVa79

Active Member
Aug 16, 2018
252
124
Virginia
✟18,621.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

Why are you linking this? Where did I say there wasn't any bird tracks in the fossil record? All this one talks about is the diversity of bird tracks found. It doesn't even have anything in it about claiming the tracks have anything to do with a rate of time. (Full disclosure: I read the first few pages and then when I realized this I attentively skimmed to the conclusion.)

The link above also gives examples of multiple species of birds walking in various directions in the same location.

Okay, so. Multiple birds can walk in various directions in the same location, at different rates of speed, I might add. it's nice that they're walking, I hope they're getting good exercise.


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

Feeding traces and bioturbation.

These animals aren't fleeing. They're just doing what typical birds do.

Oh, now I see why you linked these. I guess you don't read properly because I said that was an example due to a lack of dealing with specific situations. So I guess these are supposed to be your specific situations. Ok, uhmmm...well...the only areas they speak on rates are when they talk about the feeding and trampling depth rate of Gulls and the Shelducks and apply the observed rates of the feeding to an annual change in sedimentary depth (pg 25 & 28-29). They don't say anything about applying this to past rates. Just that these are the rates they observed during these observations. They point out this event is seasonal. None of this bothers me or my position in any way. (Full disclosure: I read the first few pages and then attentively skimmed to the conclusion.)

Edited to add: I guess you don't plan on moving on, I do.
3c0c89572a11a04ae17ed6802d7088c0.jpeg
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BroRoyVa79

Active Member
Aug 16, 2018
252
124
Virginia
✟18,621.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
"You assume what you're seeing isn't something else, I dunno, FOR EXAMPLE, (caps for emphasis) like these animals trying to escape a catastrophe."

If there are feeding traces observed, then it is of no surprise that I conclude that animals were not fleeing catastrophy.

When birds flee, they also tend to fly, rather than awkwardly walking around in circles.

We can also tell if animals are walking or running based on the spacing and impressions of their tracks.

Also, we have burrow networks of all shapes and sizes throughout the geologic column.

Massive caves in southern Brazil are actually ancient ground sloth burrows

The idea of trying to escape catastrophy would imply that animals were in a hurry. But the fossils we have often suggest otherwise. And burrows suggest long, time consuming operations (such as those linked above).

Do tell me how these animals were allegedly fleeing, but for some odd reason were actually just casually walking around...

Didn't see this.

First things first, the first line makes an assumption about the date of the burrows without any evidence to back it up...hmmm.

Again, I said, "FOR EXAMPLE, (caps for emphasis) like these animals trying to escape a catastrophe. (Example due to lacking specific examples to work with. Edited to add: And no, I'm not looking to get into the weeds about it either, got other things to do.)"

Please practice proper reading comprehension. I didn't use this as an end-all-be-all example for you to mount counterpoints against.

Either way, the article says researches came to believe ground sloths or armadillos made it. Where's the evidence that they did? Coming to believe something is one thing, observational evidence to back it up is another. The other thing is that these sloths they believe may have done it existed thousands of years ago, not millions, not billions. Hmmmm...

Overall, my impression from the article is they don't know a lot. A lot of inferences about what creature may have done it, etc. Lastly, it mentions nothing of rates by which the paleoburrows were made.

Do explain how mountains were being pushed around and rocks metamorphosed under extreme pressures and temperatures...while animals were otherwise casually burrowing or feeding or wandering around.

Entire continents buckled and crumbled...while delicate nests with eggs remain unscathed.

Psalms 104:8 tells us "The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them." So God can rase the mountains to drain the flood. He can buckle and crumble continents and in doing so keep a delicate nest with eggs unscathed long enough to be fossilized.

I really don't have to explain anything from a naturalistic perspective here to appease you. I really don't. God said He did it. We see the evidence that He did. We don't see the "How to do this" details, however.

3p0ad0.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0