Proof of Creation?

[Kylie]

First Dinosaur Fossil Discoveries - Paleontology and Geology Glossary

Where Can Fossils Be Found? | eHow

Locations of Dinosaur Digs | Scholastic.com

Here all you bring to the dig are a shovel, pick and awl or a screwdriver.
Best places to find dinosaur bones are ON THE SURFACE. Fossils are not
buried by millions of years of layers of sediment. They were buried very
recently near the surface. Kids even can find them.

The deepest fossil ever found was 2.256 kilometers below ground. The World's Deepest Dinosaur Finding -- 2256 Metres Below The Seabed -- ScienceDaily

Now you will be telling me millions of years of erosion wore down the
sediment in those locations, after the dinosaur bones were buried and
worn down to that exact spot.

Is there some reason why it couldn't happen? Erosion wears down the land all the time.

Nothing disturbed the other fossils
supposedly under the dinosaur fossils though, eh?

Not yet, but I'm sure if you allow erosion to continue, it will get there eventually.

You do know how erosion works, don't you?

I'm not screaming at you at all. I am just asking that you learn the
real facts. Explore a little beyond what you want to believe.

It seems you are lacking some facts as well.

 

[SkyWriting]

Here all you bring to the dig are a shovel, pick and awl or a screwdriver. Best places to find dinosaur bones are ON THE SURFACE.

Said to be the best because of how rare they are
and the amount of dirt to dig through is massive.

The number of ancient human skeletons in north america
is under 10. That gives you an idea of the volume of earth
that needs to be examined.

 

[stevevw]

Is this website, owned and run by Creationist - Randy S. Berg - your primary source? The Age of the Earth ?

Ah I wasnt sure but now you have pointed this out it seems the name you mention is at the bottom of the site map. But how does that change those questions. I thought they were questions that anyone would ask.

 

[lasthero]

[quote[]Here all you bring to the dig are a shovel, pick and awl or a screwdriver.
Best places to find dinosaur bones are ON THE SURFACE. Fossils are not
buried by millions of years of layers of sediment. They were buried very
recently near the surface. Kids even can find them. [/QUOTE]

It's important to note that you're overstating what those links say.

Now you will be telling me millions of years of erosion wore down the
sediment in those locations, after the dinosaur bones were buried and
worn down to that exact spot. Nothing disturbed the other fossils
supposedly under the dinosaur fossils though, eh?

Why can't I tell you that? It's what your links say.

Look for locations where rock is exposed, such as quarries, places where earth has been moved for a road to go through, strip mines, cliffs, tailing from coal mines or gravel pits. An exposed clay hillside may have fossils.

The best place to look for fossils aren't just around the surface, they're in areas that were once deeper underground, where rocks have been moved. You can't just pick up a shovel, go to some random spot, start digging and expect to find a fossil. Your link specifally says that you should for places that have become exposed. Your second link even advises deserts, areas where the landscape is constantly changing.

Oh, and found some more corellations for you to ignore.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/97JC00269/abstract

 

[Split Rock]

Do we? Most fossils aren't that deeply buried.

Correction.... most fossils that are discovered and recovered aren't deeply buried. That is a matter of technical convenience. The ones exposed (or at least partially exposed) near the surface are the ones that are found. It is expensive and time consuming to dig deep into the earth for fossils. There are, however, many examples of fossils found deep through core drilling (mostly for the petroleum industry).

 

[Split Rock]

A good bit of dinosaur bones and footprints were discovered by accident. Not by digging miles down into the earth. You have got to
break free of this notion that all the fossil layers represent different
long ages of time. That is man's misconception.

This is the basis of stratigraphy. It works real well for human settlements that can be dated via other means. Why wouldn't it work for the earth? As usual, you want to restrict the applications of techniques that work, but only when what they reveal goes against your religious dogma. Then it becomes "man's misconceptions."

Here all you bring to the dig are a shovel, pick and awl or a screwdriver.
Best places to find dinosaur bones are ON THE SURFACE. Fossils are not
buried by millions of years of layers of sediment. They were buried very
recently near the surface. Kids even can find them.

These are the ones exposed by erosion. These are the ones easiest to find and recover.

Now you will be telling me millions of years of erosion wore down the sediment in those locations, after the dinosaur bones were buried and
worn down to that exact spot. Nothing disturbed the other fossils
supposedly under the dinosaur fossils though, eh?

Fossils can certainly be destroyed either by tectonic processes, or by erosion before they are recovered. That is why they remain relatively rare.

I'm not screaming at you at all. I am just asking that you learn the real facts. Explore a little beyond what you want to believe.

Wow. Maybe you should apply this good advice to your own perceptions first!

 

[Loudmouth]

A good bit of dinosaur bones and footprints were discovered by
accident. Not by digging miles down into the earth.

Why do you think that is?

If you were going to look for fossils, where would you look? Would you dig a 1,000 foot shaft so you could look at 5 square feet of sediment, or would you look for a cut where the deposits are already exposed?

You have got to
break free of this notion that all the fossil layers represent different
long ages of time. That is man's misconception.

What evidence do you have that it is a misconception? How do you explain the correlation between fossil species and the ratio of isotopes in the rocks above and below them? Why can't we find a single non-avian dinosaur above rocks that date to 65 million years with K/Ar dating? Why can't we find any mammals in sediments that date to the Cambrian?

 

[Loudmouth]

Said to be the best because of how rare they are
and the amount of dirt to dig through is massive.

The number of ancient human skeletons in north america
is under 10. That gives you an idea of the volume of earth
that needs to be examined.

Passenger pigeons used to number in the billions before they went extinct. Early settlers in the US reported that flocks would blot out the Sun for hours. We only have a handful of fossil examples.

 

[Loudmouth]

Many, many things you question and don't seem to know about are usually
common knowledge.

You don't seem to know how radiometric dating is done.

 

[SkyWriting]

The best place to look for fossils aren't just around the surface, they're in areas that were once deeper underground, where rocks have been moved. You can't just pick up a shovel, go to some random spot, start digging and expect to find a fossil. Your link specifally says that you should for places that have become exposed. Your second link even advises deserts, areas where the landscape is constantly changing.

The best place is where erosion is doing most of the work for you.


Where to Find Fossils - Fossil Hunting Locations, directions, identification, tips, and fossil examples

 

[Doveaman]

Were the sun, moon and stars already created at this point? Or were see prehistoric animals in constant darkness?

The atmosphere around the earth was clouded during the global freeze, leaving the earth in total darkness. The sun, moon ans stars were made to appear on day four, restoring light to the earth.

 

[Doveaman]

Its not a case of disproving it. Its a case of it being proven to be accurate.
All radiometric dating methods require making at least three assumptions. These are:
1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
3) The sample has remained in a closed system.

With so many assumptions it should be called the dating hypothesis instead of the dating method.

 

[Davian]

...
Explore a little beyond what you want to believe.

 

[Loudmouth]

With so many assumptions it should be called the dating hypothesis instead of the dating method.

None of those are assumptions used in radiometric dating.

 

[lasthero]

Explore a little beyond what you want to believe.

Also, for the record, I don't want to believe that evolution is true or that the universe is old. It would be nice if the world was really only a few thousand years old and evolution never happened. It would make my life, living among a bunch of conservative Christians, much simpler if that were the case.

But it's not. I don't base my beliefs on what I'd like to be true, but what I accept to be true. Reality doesn't care much for my personal comfort levels.

 

[Split Rock]

The atmosphere around the earth was clouded during the global freeze, leaving the earth in total darkness. The sun, moon ans stars were made to appear on day four, restoring light to the earth.

What "global freeze?"

With so many assumptions it should be called the dating hypothesis instead of the dating method.

Speaking of which.....

 

[Doveaman]

What "global freeze?"

The one that resulted in the global flood in Genesis 1.

[FONT=&quot]“[FONT=&quot]D[/FONT]arkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Then God said, ‘Let there be light’”, and the rest is history.[/FONT]

 

[EternalDragon]

Also, for the record, I don't want to believe that evolution is true or that the universe is old. It would be nice if the world was really only a few thousand years old and evolution never happened. It would make my life, living among a bunch of conservative Christians, much simpler if that were the case.

But it's not. I don't base my beliefs on what I'd like to be true, but what I accept to be true. Reality doesn't care much for my personal comfort levels.

The universe is old. Evolution is true as far as species being able to cope
and diversify. You are mixing in man's assumptions with your beliefs. That
is not reality.

Why are those Christians conservative? Because they trust what Jesus
said and taught. That Genesis is a true account of our history.

 

[bhsmte]

And also; projection.

 

[lasthero]

The universe is old.

It's old because it's actually old. Not because it was made to look that way.

[quote Evolution is true as far as species being able to cope
and diversify.[/quote]

Which is all anyone ever proposed.

Why are those Christians conservative? Because they trust what Jesus
said and taught. That Genesis is a true account of our his

No, they trust in their fallible interpretation of what he said and taught, and they do so regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary.