Calypsis4 wrote:
The varve leaf - Where is that from?
It comes from the Edinger Collection. Don't have the website protocol. Sorry.
Is that really in varves?
Have you never seen a varve before? Well, take a look for yourself:
Varve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What publication describes it, and what to geologists say about it? Right now, all we have is a picture of a leaf.
'A picture is worth a thousand words', no doubt you've heard. This one destroys evolutionary geology all by itself. It can be likened unto NASA astronauts on the moon discovering an oblong shaped monolith that sends radio signals. Get my drift?
In fact, to my untrained eye, those "varves" look an awful lot like saw marks, and the fact that they cut into the leaf supports that.
Nope. That's wishful thinking. You're trying to protect your belief in mythical evolution.
fossils at high altitudes are nothing new, including snail fossils.
Right. Because the flood of Noah put them there.
They are usually formed by uplift of the rock after the fossils form. Are you saying that geology has established that the area where the fossils formed was the top of a mountain when the animals were alive? Help me out here.
Sure. Here is where the animals in the first photo were buried (by the tens of thousands in the SAME location)
This is the 4,300 ft. elevation of Agate Springs, Nebraska. I took the photo myself through the big window of the museum there. Do you honestly believe that all those thousands of animals migrated to that spot and crowded together in one place only to die together and slowly get fossilized together over millions of yrs? Come on!
Animals just don't lay around for millions of yrs only to be covered over inch-by-inch and become fossilized. It doesn't happen that way. These organisms obviously experienced instantaneous burial, perhaps from volcanic sediment and/or huge amounts of land sediment that fell on them at the same moment and they were fossilized instantly.
The next one - just looking at that shows that they weren't instantly fossilized, because all the bones appear to be jumbled up
Just the opposite is true. They WERE instantly fossilized. What else but cataclysmic conditions could possibly do such a thing since slow and gradual processes would only see these bones go the way of all other bones...first the insects/predators would eat away all the flesh and then the weather would eventually turn the bones into dust.
- unless you are saying the animals were first torn limb from limb, then blenderized, then instantly fossilized?
The dinosaur you see through the museum window is just one of the many dinosaurs that were found, skeleton intact, upon that ridge at 4,300 ft.
Mass fossil locations and even mass, contemporaneous fossilizations are not a problem for evolution - disasters like volcanic eruptions do happen - though caves or such that slowly fossilize those that fall in are also a common source of mass fossil sites.
The caves can accumulate fossils for thousands, even millions of years, ending up with quite a few.
They weren't in caves. Human beings OBSERVED the flood and every nation on earth has ancient history of flood traditions. The scriptures of God tell us what happened. Why should we doubt what Moses told us? Jesus didn't?
The polystrate fossils can be formed in a number of ways. For one thing, layers can be deposited, and trees or other such things grow through them later, and then become fossilized themselves. Sudden deposition does happen, though that of course wouldnt form differently dated layers. Also, deep history could take a fossil and then form layers around it, such as if a petrified tree had subsquent layer form around it.
That is foolish. No tree on earth would ever stand for millions of yrs waiting to be covered up slowly by sediment.
You didn't document a source that gives scientific reasoning for this phenomena. But that would take observation over millions of years. That you cannot do nor can anyone else.
Without detail on your photos (such as what geologists say on the dating of the layers, the fossil, and all that), I can't tell anything from your photos.
The details speak for itself. Fossils of trees that extend through millions of yrs of strata. Why do you think National Geographic even published those pictures to begin with? It's an anomaly they can't figure out.
Overall - do you think all those geologists are unaware of polystrate fossils, and that you just happen to have this secret knowledge that the experts missed?
They struggle with it and nervously rub their hands together after attempting to 'explain' how this could happen. But what happened at Mt. St. Helen's is telling us the true story of how this happens. Thousands of standing trees destroyed by the 1980 eruption are being fossilized as we type. It doesn't take millions of yrs.
Does that seem plausible to you? Which do you think is more likely - that all these scientists of different religions (including Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) all decided to form a grand conspiracy to lie about how to interpret these particular fossils, or, on the other hand, that maybe we don't have the full story on these bare pictures?
Yes, it is a conspiracy that many people bought into. I did too. I am an ex-evolutionist. But it isn't hard to figure out that they weren't telling the truth and I've given some excellent reasons on this page alone that reveal why.
In the same "geological" vein (about your "out west" pictures) - you are saying that geologists worldwide, including the whole Geological Society of America - have somehow missed the existance of the whole freakin' southwest united states?!??!
Yes, by being brainwashed with lies just like I was.
Don't you think it is a little more likely that they have looked at these supposed "flood" features, and rejected that interpretation based on the evidence?
No, because they don't have the evidence. The evidence speaks of the truthfulness of scripture, not evolution.
I mean, even with my untrained eye, it is obvious that all those pictures you posted are more easily explaned by simple erosion than a flood - I don't see why you think they support flood geology, much less why you think the Geological Society of America is unware of the states of Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and more.
You are aware, I assume, that flood geology was the way all features were interpreted until the early 1800's (before Darwin), and as more and more problems added up, slowly rejected as untenable based on the evidence? It's not like geologists didn't try as hard as they could for a century to make flood geology work. They did - committed Christians, too. They couldn't do so, and finally realized that it was only the idea that the flood in genesis was literal and worldwide that was closing their eyes to God's full revelation, in the earth itself.
You know about the efforts of Sedgwick, including his statements in 1831, right?
You've just given opinions, nothing more. Toss evolution. It is a myth.
Papias
