The problem of the Green River Formation

[Job 33:6]

I feel like I'm the only one who actually talked about the green River formation. Everyone else seems to be going off onto other topics.

 

[pitabread]

I feel like I'm the only one who actually talked about the green River formation. Everyone else seems to be going off onto other topics.

IOW, it's just another normal thread on these forums.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

I can not argue much about this, I am not a dedicated paleontologist. However, birds showed up in Mesozoic. It is not that much later than most land animals.

One doesn't need to be a "dedicated paleontologist" to know that bird fossils don't show up anywhere near the first land animals. Even if one ignores that absolute ages of the rocks in which they are found birds show up long after land animals. And in terms of actual time there's something like 155 million years between when land animals first appear and when birds first appear. That's not a particularly short period of time.

At least, the Bible does not say land animals (in Day 6) are created before marine animals (in Day 5).

It clearly states that seed bearing plants are created before sea animals which, again, is wrong. But yes it does get the order of land and sea animals correct by not saying anything specific.

I do wish I could understand more biology, so I can be more satisfied by the creation sequence described in Day 5 and Day 6.

Doesn't seem like it would be helpful. Seems like knowing the actual science makes things more difficult for a literal Genesis account.

This is why Young Earth Creationism has nothing to do with science. It's 100% religion. Which is fine. It's confusing why people feel the need to shoehorn purely religious topics into science as if science matters to them. Science doesn't work that way. Religion does. Religion starts with a claim and then seeks to make reality conform to it. If that is how one wishes to proceed then that's fine...but it has nothing to do with science.

 

[juvenissun]

One doesn't need to be a "dedicated paleontologist" to know that bird fossils don't show up anywhere near the first land animals.

It does. Birds are identified by their feathers. Now we know some dinosaurs have feather. That pushed the possible appearance of bird back to Triassic time. It is not that impossible for feathered animal (bird) appeared in late Paleozoic time when the land animals started to be found.

 

[juvenissun]

It clearly states that seed bearing plants are created before sea animals which, again, is wrong. But yes it does get the order of land and sea animals correct by not saying anything specific.

You do not get my reminder. Plants may have been around in the universe before our sun was formed. This piece goes beyond geology, and it would take a while to explain. It all depends on how much you are willing to explore.

Genesis 1 is the lighthouse of sciences.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

It does. Birds are identified by their feathers. Now we know some dinosaurs have feather.

That isn't how one defines birds. There's some idea that some dinosaurs had feathers.

That pushed the possible appearance of bird back to Triassic time. It is not that impossible for feathered animal (bird) appeared in late Paleozoic time when the land animals started to be found.

This is just guessing on your part in hopes of pushing the appearance back >150 million years. That's fine but it isn't anything of real value scientifically. It's wishing.

It's understandable that you would dearly love it if your religious faith in a literal Genesis had support in the world of science but clearly that's not necessary. You arrived at that faith through non-scientific reasons and science won't alter it for you. That's the nature of religion. And that's OK.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

You do not get my reminder. Plants may have been around in the universe before our sun was formed. This piece goes beyond geology, and it would take a while to explain. It all depends on how much you are willing to explore.

I'm not necessarily interested in discussing your unique RELIGIOUS BELIEFS in this area as they have no real bearing on a common reality. Sounds like a lot of wishes (without any real evidence). Sort of wish-placeholders in hopes of forestalling what the actual evidence says.

Genesis 1 is the lighthouse of sciences.

We clearly have very different views of how science works.

 

[juvenissun]

That isn't how one defines birds. There's some idea that some dinosaurs had feathers.

This is just guessing on your part in hopes of pushing the appearance back >150 million years. That's fine but it isn't anything of real value scientifically. It's wishing.

Well, was there bird before 150 m.y. is anybody's guess. I certainly wish so. Nobody can say I wished it wrong.

If you do not like my definition of bird, then my chance of being right would even become better. How do you define bird?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not necessarily interested in discussing your unique RELIGIOUS BELIEFS in this area as they have no real bearing on a common reality. Sounds like a lot of wishes (without any real evidence). Sort of wish-placeholders in hopes of forestalling what the actual evidence says.

We clearly have very different views of how science works.

I am serious in talking sciences here. You chicken out, that is your option.

 

[Speedwell]

I am serious in talking sciences here. You chicken out, that is your option.

No serious science is based on the fantasy of a literal and inerrant Genesis.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

I am serious in talking sciences here. You chicken out, that is your option.

I'd be glad to talk science with you. Let me know when you want to start.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

Well, was there bird before 150 m.y. is anybody's guess. I certainly wish so. Nobody can say I wished it wrong.

If you do not like my definition of bird, then my chance of being right would even become better. How do you define bird?

I apologize...modern birds are defined in part by their feathers. However feathers appear to be part of dinosauria as well, meaning that the origins of birds would not necessarily be limited to the first development of feathers.

Evolution of Feathers

 

[Jimmy D]

I feel like I'm the only one who actually talked about the green River formation. Everyone else seems to be going off onto other topics.

It seems no one can challenge what you wrote...

Chalk it up as another YEC fail and we can all move on.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

I feel like I'm the only one who actually talked about the green River formation. Everyone else seems to be going off onto other topics.

Yeah, the Green River Fm is one of the hardest ones for YEC "scientists" to get past. Which is why they leave it to fake scientist felons like "Dr." Dino, Kent Hovind, professional theif, to defend. It's easier for Kent because Kent is unburdened by any actual training in science.

 

[juvenissun]

Yeah, the Green River Fm is one of the hardest ones for YEC "scientists" to get past. Which is why they leave it to fake scientist felons like "Dr." Dino, Kent Hovind, professional theif, to defend. It's easier for Kent because Kent is unburdened by any actual training in science.

I don't see the Green River formation is anything special in the issue. We can replace it with the Red River formation and the argument or the question would be the same. In other words, it is a fake topic.

 

[juvenissun]

I apologize...modern birds are defined in part by their feathers. However feathers appear to be part of dinosauria as well, meaning that the origins of birds would not necessarily be limited to the first development of feathers.

Evolution of Feathers

If we can not define what a bird is, then why is the description in the Genesis 1 wrong? It is more likely that it is RIGHT in science. We should try hard to find a definition for bird.

 

[pitabread]

It seems no one can challenge what you wrote...

Chalk it up as another YEC fail and we can all move on.

Does anyone still really argue YEC though? It feels like YECism fell out of favor in the last decade among creationists.

Nobody seems to defend it any more.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

I don't see the Green River formation is anything special in the issue. We can replace it with the Red River formation and the argument or the question would be the same. In other words, it is a fake topic.

It's not a fake topic to YEC who twist and bend science to explain how varves are not varves.

If you are unfamiliar with YEC you may not know that they are hard-pressed to explain just the Green River Fm varves because that unit, alone, accounts for more time than they allow for the entirety of earth history, many times over.

Which is why the YEC who want to invoke science have to rely on charlatans, thieves and felons like Kent Hovind.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

If we can not define what a bird is, then why is the description in the Genesis 1 wrong? It is more likely that it is RIGHT in science. We should try hard to find a definition for bird.

Because birds show up AFTER land animals no matter how you define bird. Whether you rely on the bone structure related to dinosauria, the appearance of feathers or whatever.

 

[Speedwell]

Does anyone still really argue YEC though? It feels like YECism fell out of favor in the last decade among creationists.

Nobody seems to defend it any more.

I think some of them are beginning to realize (as the rest of Christendom has for centuries) that the Bible does not teach the age of the Earth in any unequivocal way.

Then too, U.S. fundamentalist Evangelicals (containing the bulk of YECs) have recently begun to exercise their religious enthusiasm more frequently in the political sphere. Creationism has become something of a side show.