Why the Fathers did not leave any remains or fossils

[dad]

God told Adam that he would return to dust. Modern man does not do that, his remains decay slowly. From a bible perspective, we could assume that pre-flood man would have left no remains other than dust. We can also deduce that man would not have been in the fossil record although he was living on earth.

 

[Lost4words]

Depends on the make up of the ground. Some places, bones can be very well preserved. Adam was reserved for special treatment maybe.

 

[Occams Barber]

God told Adam that he would return to dust. Modern man does not do that, his remains decay slowly. From a bible perspective, we could assume that pre-flood man would have left no remains other than dust. We can also deduce that man would not have been in the fossil record although he was living on earth.

Not really:

Human Fossils (Smithsonian)
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

OB

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia

Dinosaur Bones | American Museum of Natural History

Search

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Evidence for a Flood | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

 

[Bungle_Bear]

God told Adam that he would return to dust. Modern man does not do that, his remains decay slowly. From a bible perspective, we could assume that pre-flood man would have left no remains other than dust. We can also deduce that man would not have been in the fossil record although he was living on earth.

You may make any assumptions you want, but that doesn't make them right. And any deductions you make based on those assertions will be similarly incorrect.

 

[Occams Barber]

Evidence for a Flood | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

@JackRT will be interested in this one (if he hasn't already seen it).

OB

 

[dad]

Depends on the make up of the ground. Some places, bones can be very well preserved. Adam was reserved for special treatment maybe.

In those days, no one can say it depended on that. It may have been the natural course of events. History fits a sudden change in how the dead were treated. Egypt was quite focused on burial and the dead. If the dead had never left remains in the past before that, it makes sense that they had to learn to deal with it.

Besides, if we expect remains for most animals and man then the fossil record makes no sense.

 

[dad]

You may make any assumptions you want, but that doesn't make them right

So may you.

. And any deductions you make based on those assertions will be similarly incorrect.

I try not to make assumptions that are contrary to science and Scripture.

 

[JackRT]

@JackRT will be interested in this one (if he hasn't already seen it).

OB

Thanks for posting this! This article dates to 20 years ago and the actual discovery is more like 30 years ago but it is very instructive. This could very likely be the actual event that gave rise to the legends of the Gilgamesh Epic and the Noah Flood. In a very similar event about 2500 years earlier the sea also broke through and flooded the Arabian Gulf.

 

[SkyWriting]

God told Adam that he would return to dust. Modern man does not do that, his remains decay slowly. From a bible perspective, we could assume that pre-flood man would have left no remains other than dust. We can also deduce that man would not have been in the fossil record although he was living on earth.

Yes, man does eventually turn to dust. So seek ye first the Spirit.

 

[dad]

Yes, man does eventually turn to dust. .

Theoretically this is the case. However, how many relatives or people have you seen turn to dust? None. The issue here is whether Adam returned to dust in minutes or days, rather than the untold centuries it may now take. Furthermore, the issue is that if he did, and most animals also did in the days of the fathers, that would explain the fossil record, and why we are not in it.

 

[Occams Barber]

Theoretically this is the case. However, how many relatives or people have you seen turn to dust? None. The issue here is whether Adam returned to dust in minutes or days, rather than the untold centuries it may now take. Furthermore, the issue is that if he did, and most animals also did in the days of the fathers, that would explain the fossil record, and why we are not in it.

Not really:

Human Fossils (Smithsonian)
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia​

There's nothing to explain Dad - we are in the fossil record. Most of us might turn to dust but, fortunately, there have been a few of us who didn't.​

OB

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In those days, no one can say it depended on that. It may have been the natural course of events. History fits a sudden change in how the dead were treated. Egypt was quite focused on burial and the dead. If the dead had never left remains in the past before that, it makes sense that they had to learn to deal with it.

The Egyptians were "focused on burial and the dead" at a time that dates to before the flood.

Besides, if we expect remains for most animals and man then the fossil record makes no sense.

It's not the fossil record that makes no sense, it's your bizarre theology.

 

[Tolworth John]

God told Adam that he would return to dust. Modern man does not do that, his remains decay slowly. From a bible perspective, we could assume that pre-flood man would have left no remains other than dust. We can also deduce that man would not have been in the fossil record although he was living on earth.

How long did God say that it would take to decay to dust for both Adam and modern man?
How do you know there are no remains of preflood men to be found as fossilized remains?

 

[SkyWriting]

Theoretically this is the case. However, how many relatives or people have you seen turn to dust? None. The issue here is whether Adam returned to dust in minutes or days, rather than the untold centuries it may now take. Furthermore, the issue is that if he did, and most animals also did in the days of the fathers, that would explain the fossil record, and why we are not in it.

At the university of Texas they have a "Farm" of over 30 acres, where the students recover bodies left in the open at various stages of decomposition to study. Bones decompose in as little as 5 years....all depending on air and moisture.

I've seen animals turn to dust much quicker on the street. My dogs even find the dust to be very interesting.

 

[dad]

There's nothing to explain Dad - we are in the fossil record. Most of us might turn to dust but, fortunately, there have been a few of us who didn't.​

OB

No. We are not in the early record at all.

 

[Occams Barber]

No. We are not in the early record at all.

What do you mean by "early record"?
OB

 

[dad]

The Egyptians were "focused on burial and the dead" at a time that dates to before the flood.

Not in real actual time. That would only be according to belief-based dating schemes.

It's not the fossil record that makes no sense, it's your bizarre theology.

It makes perfect sense actually.

 

[dad]

How long did God say that it would take to decay to dust for both Adam and modern man?
How do you know there are no remains of preflood men to be found as fossilized remains?

Well, I place the time of the flood somewhere around the KT layer. We see no men there.