The order of fossils in the geological column

[AV1611VET]

You have no idea how science works.

And you have no idea when it isn't going to work.

Which is worse?

 

[Dizredux]

T
The scientists who get on the Internet and scream about Jesus' death being a hoax -- let alone His resurrection -

Can you show some scientist doing this?

Dizredux

 

[bhsmte]

Can you show some scientist doing this?

Dizredux

To AV, not buying the story is the same as claiming it is a hoax.

 

[Queller]

One example is looking at the orbit of the moon. They work backwards till they smash it into planet earth!

No, creationists do that in an attempt to falsify science, but scientists don't.

Another example is Continental drift rates....they assume the same rates and work backwards. Need I go on. That is EXACTLY the name of their game.

No, they DON'T just assume the same rates. The look for evidence of DIFFERENT rates and don't find them. If they ever do find that evidence, the theory will change. But scientists don't simply ASSUME the rates are the same.

Only using present laws and believing they also existed in the far past...or will exist in the future. (example, claiming the sun will 'burn out')

They don't simply "believe" physics operated differently in the past, they design and conduct experiments that would show evidence of a "different state past". Guess what, they have NEVER found any.

Unlike you, scientists don't believe that the absence of evidence that physics operated differently in the past is evidence that physics DID operate differently in the past.

 

[Queller]

We don't have biblical floods anymore.

According to your claims, the Biblical Flood was nothing more than a really big tidal surge. We DO have that today.

I'm sure it does after a period of time.

No period of time necessary. It would begin happening immediately.

 

[Queller]

Are 95% of all fossils shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish? Or not?

About 1-5% are actually scattered bones of dinosaurs and other larger animals. Many are from the ice age after the flood. Basically 5% of the remaining 5% of fossils are amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal fossils. (.25%)

What does any of that have to do with the fossils being out of order?

 

[Queller]

Nope. they are found everywhere and in among dinosaur and mammal fossils.

Evidence that these "shallow marine organism" fossils didn't live at the same time as those other fossils?

Different environments, different zones, different burials.

No evidence, no evidence, no evidence.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ya, I do.

According to the Water Canopy theory, a water canopy distributed the rays of the sun around the earth uniformly, making the earth a tropical paradise.

When the Flood occurred, God broke the water canopy apart and it rained down on the earth.

Without this water canopy, polar climatology took over.

Water doesn't bend light in a uniform way. Also, light doesn't work that way, it doesn't spread through liquids and come out even at all, so water just wouldn't do that.

 

[Queller]

Noah's flood sediment would be thin, widely scattered and inconsistent, badly weathered, contain few fossil remains (with the exception of bones washed up and re-deposited), and be virtually absent from most regions of the earth.

But it would still be there.

There is no logical reason why there would only be a few fossil remains. No matter what type of flood you propose it would still kill life and then bury it in sediment, so there should be plenty of fossils.

 

[AV1611VET]

Water doesn't bend light in a uniform way. Also, light doesn't work that way, it doesn't spread through liquids and come out even at all, so water just wouldn't do that.

I don't care if it does or not.

That wasn't the issue.

The issue was that he (can't remember who now) was "making it up."

And I also can't remember who accused him of it -- nor do I care.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't care if it does or not.

That wasn't the issue.

The issue was that he (can't remember who now) was "making it up."

And I also can't remember who accused him of it -- nor do I care.

Ok, well technically any idea is "made up" if you want to be pessimistic about it. Scientifically though it is unsound for multiple reasons.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, well technically any idea is "made up" if you want to be pessimistic about it.

Again, let me correct you.

A claimed B "made it up."

B did not "make it up".

 

[PsychoSarah]

Again, let me correct you.

A claimed B "made it up."

B did not "make it up".

So basically, unnamed person C made up the idea.

 

[AV1611VET]

So basically, unnamed person C made up the idea.

Yes, unnamed person C made up the idea as an educated guess; but person B was given the credit for it by person A.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, unnamed person C made up the idea as an educated guess; but person B was given the credit for it by person A.

So person B made the mistake of bringing the idea made up by unnamed person C without citation.

 

[AV1611VET]

So person B made the mistake of bringing the idea made up by unnamed person C without citation.

No citation needed where basic doctrine is concerned.

HOWEVER, in my eight years here, I'm still surprised by the lack of knowledge of even basic doctrine by those who adhere to the scientific method.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No citation needed where basic doctrine is concerned.

HOWEVER, in my eight years here, I'm still surprised by the lack of knowledge of even basic doctrine by those who adhere to the scientific method.

Have you read the Hindu Verdas? If it isn't one's religion, it shouldn't be all that shocking if they haven't read the doctrine. What surprises me more is the number of religious people who don't seem to have read the text upon which their faith resides in.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you read the Hindu Verdas?

No.

If it isn't one's religion, it shouldn't be all that shocking if they haven't read the doctrine.

I would assume the Hindu Verdas [sic] are to the Hindu what the Bible is to Christians.

Except the Hindu Vedas are now, in the 21[sup]st[/sup] century, probably backed by science.

What surprises me more is the number of religious people who don't seem to have read the text upon which their faith resides in.

Good!

Scientists evidently are more familiar with them ... as they cite them as being evidence that the Bible doesn't contain the first words ever written on earth.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No.

I would assume the Hindu Verdas [sic] are to the Hindu what the Bible is to Christians.

Except the Hindu Vedas are now, in the 21[sup]st[/sup] century, probably backed by science.

Good!

Scientists evidently are more familiar with them ... as they cite them as being evidence that the Bible doesn't contain the first words ever written on earth.

The Verdas are roughly what would be equivalent in the Hindu religions as the bible is in the Christian faiths. And no, they are not backed by science, although from what little of them I can find in English, they are more well written than the bible is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But it would still be there.

There is no logical reason why there would only be a few fossil remains. No matter what type of flood you propose it would still kill life and then bury it in sediment, so there should be plenty of fossils.

In fast rushing water that contained lots of material yes, but a slow moving flood would deposit its sediments rather quickly, and the bodies wouldn't sink until some time later and would rest on or near the surface, to decompose rather quickly.