Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

And we haven't even considered the kinetic energy due to difference in velocity between the water is space and the Earth's surface, which makes it even worse!

---

Who said God would slam the water on to the planet? Who said there would have been much if any of a temperature difference? (He could cool or heat it as needed, with cosmic forces He controled.What if forces were at work that cahanged the earth's gravitational field? (even briefly, you know the magnetic field can be reversed and affected) So it is not a case of "dropping the ball, but more one of executing a beautiful syncronised feather landing. In a nutshell, you assume God was not in the picture actively, and omit potential forces that are not now in play, and rest utterly on theories such as tectonics, that omit the flood as well.

quote:

---

Measurements, not theories.

---

Measurements of how it is, not was or will be. Measurements largely based on anti young earth assumptions and theories.

quote:

---

He does the calculations for the ice canopy and then doesn't do them for his "model"; because, as I said, the calculations show that the heat released would have cooked everything

---

Yes so you say. But are not the 'calculations based on what we don't really fully know about the earth's guts, except in theory? Does not the 'calculations' ignore any potential flood time effects that could drastically change the formula?

Actually, I simply was surprise to hear a proclamation from Ned that there were no exceptions! I thought you folks might be a little more careful. All I was going on is a vague rememberance of some creation stuff I thought I may have remembered. So I dug a few tidbits up for Ned, and sure enough, this is what creation science folks do say. Here we go
The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean
order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There
is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight
down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the
textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in
nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside
down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where
evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced ("younger" and "older"
layers found in repeating sequences). "Out of place" fossils are the rule
and not the exception throughout the fossil record. The page you requested cannot be found!
For example, remains of Homo erectus-supposedly an evolutionary ancestor of modern man that lived 1.6 to .4 million years ago-have been found in Australia that have been dated to only a few hundred to a few thousand years ago. Although according to the evolutionary timetable the species is said to have died out several hundred thousand years ago, the remains of at least 62 individuals have been dated as less than 12,000 years old Search | United Church of God
How much more simple and direct it would be to explain the fossil-bearing rocks as the record in stone of the destruction of the antediluvian world by the great Flood. The various fossil assemblages represent, not evolutionary stages developing over many ages, but rather ecological habitats in various parts of the world in one age. Fossils of simple marine invertebrate animals are normally found at the lowest elevations in the geologic strata for the simple reason that they live at the lowest elevations. Fossils or birds and mammals are found only at the higher elevations because they live at higher elevations and also because they are more mobile and could escape burial longer. Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan and in Arizona Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina. Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian rocksrocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian rocksrocks deposited before life supposedly evolved. A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a hundred million years Other hoofprints are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia.
Petrified trees in Arizona’s petrified forest contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are supposedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants which bees require) supposedly evolved almost a hundred million years later Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers supposedly evolved Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale. (walt's site)
So, Ned's edict was hot air in large part, it would seem.

quote:

---

You must back up your statments. You must show evidence and logic if you wish to be taken seriously at all. You have nothing so far.

---

Come to think of it ol boy, what have you provided so far? Perhaps you think it was something? I must have missed it, except for the ol mantra of how high and mighty and big and infallable your geo masters are! Then of course, you gave us your edict. Sweet.

quote:

---

It is very clear that some creation believers are daft. Perhaps even a large fraction of them.

---

Glad you use your own words at times.

quote:

---

We, with a HUGE number of samples draw well supported logical conclusions about the nature of the geology of Earth.

---

Granted there is a pattern, but I don't give granny bacteria credit for it as you do. Omitting way over, as you admit yourself, 99% of the evidence, and then issuing your edict about 'no exceptions' -basing it almost all on evolving from granny bacteria, throwing out the bible with the flood water, and calling 'nearly all' of your opponents "daft" you have made your bed, so lie in it.

Your suggestion to look at Bill's post---I looked up the biostratigraphy
"The application of plant and animal fossils to date and correlate strata in order to elucidate Earth history, combining the principles of paleontology and stratigraphy. In the petroleum industry, biostratigraphy often denotes the use of terrestrial (pollen and spores) and marine (diatoms, foraminifera, nannofossils) microfossils to determine the absolute or relative age and depositional environment of a particular formation, source rock or reservoir of interest. "
Oh, wow. What a sick joke this is! Use of assumed evo'd plants and animals to date the world!!!!!!!!!!!Ha--- You gotta be kidding..no one brought up granny, you say? Nonscense.

quote:

---

The 99% of the evidence isn't omitted. It isn't evidence yet because it hasn't been found.

---

Yes, couldn't you figure it out, this was what I was refering to. In other words, of the entire crime scene of the world, a small fraction of a percent has been looked at, and from this totalitarian conclusions etched in stone. Conclusions based on good old assumptions on those plants and animals as to age. So far, you got nothing. Only statements of faith.

quote:

---

Does grass live only at high elevations? Did grass run faster than dinosaurs? Where do rabbits live?

---

Speaking of grass, is it a possibility at all, that grass pre flood did not use pollen as a reproduction method?
The post here was to use creation science sources to show there is doubt that there are no exceptions to the fossil record. We could go deeper, but many really seem to feel it is not a perfect sacrosanc order as Ned's edict procalaimed.

Far as I know, yes

quote:

---

We find marine dinosaurs with marine dinosuars but we never find marine mammals in the same layers

---

So then, in the little we dug up so far, then, it seems the pattern would be that the dinos (you say are marine) hung together, and tended to get buried and fossilized together. As did the marine mammals. Is this supposed to be real shocking or something?
I had a funny little thought. If the vibes were going out through the world that the creator had to destoy dry land life (and a good portion of the sea life that got caught in it's phases, mudslides, etc) maybe instinct kicked in, and creatures had an urge to be together!!!! This would tend to give us a pettern of these creatures buried together, no? Instinct is a wonderful and powerful thing! Creatures come equipped with amazing complicated programs that kick in as needed. Certainly didn't evolve with such a nice program package included! Wonderful!
By the way, granny bacteria believers, how is it that woman was supposedly made? Did man have to wait millions of years, using his hand for more than plowing? Or was it a woman granny provided us with first, and she had a virgin birth?

quote:

---

No one here ever said that woman 'was made,' except for you, that is. Please clarify.

---

Woman is here then, unmade if you wish. How did man and woman (says evo) come to be appearing together-at the same time? I assume you'd have to say the both evolved at the same time.

quote:

---

Then you will have to explain to us why we find marine mammals with marine fish and shellfish, etc. in the same environment today but not in the past...

---

Do you find many fossilized?

quote:

---

The question is can you back them up?

---

Instinct is not theory, we know about this. It works 4 million ways from sunday. You can provide no reason it was not at play in the deluge.

quote:

---

'Vibes?' Please explain the biblical reference to 'vibes'.

---

Who said the word came from the bible? Why are you concerned with a book who's account of the flood echoed in Jesus own mouth you utterly reject?

quote:

---

That explains everything: you are a sixties throwback. How about a little chorus of Kum-Bah-Yah?

---

Thank you I only meant it to help explain one little mystery that perplexed you confused granny oriented folks. Maybe they sang "whoopee, we're all gonna die" ?

quote:

---

All you need is love

---

Amen, God is love.

quote:

---

What is your supporting evidence?

---

Evidence for instincts in animal world? Come on now, get serious, you aren't really doubting that, unless you are retarded.

OK Ned, I seem to have an uncanny knack at finding your sore spots. Something tells me there is a weakness here somewhere, but we'll let you off the hook for now.

Sorry, if you insist on trying to swich the topicc to woman, Ned & I will stop playing mr nice guy wit yu.

quote:

---

If you want to invoke miracles, admit that you aren't talking about science,

---

As I say now, and may say again, if you try to omit miracles from everything, you will limit your understanding of science! Miracles are very scientific. It's just that our science is still quite backward to grasp how God's science does these things. When it comes to creation and the flood it is utterly impossible to even discuss it seriously if you leave out miracles! How could God create everything in a week, if not for a plain bunch of (to us now at least) miracles? How could He end human life on the whole planet, in such a way as to make it possible for life to bloom again if not for a miracle? How could He even tell Noah how to build the ark witout a miracle? How could He even Personally close the door to the ark without what we consider a miracle??!! No, He is part of true science, actually a fantasticlly big part. There is no escaping this. Someone sold you a phoney bill of goods to get you to think otherwise! Creation/evolution debate really is nothing in the world but God's miracles, like creation, against such miracles as granny bacteria basically mothering all life, and the cosmic cup o soup emitting all things out of itself!!! The only difference in God's good world is that the faithful evolutionists scream darn murder if you point this out, deny it, cry foul, and insist that only the other side's miracles don't count! So- take your rock is old because a fossil is in it baloney to a faith based forum, really.

quote:

---

Come up with somne evidence that indicates it was or will be different. Until then, give it up.

---

Prove that things will always be the same and always will, or give up and surrender unconditionally now please.

quote:

---

Yes, becase we always ignore hypotheses for which there is no evidence, which have no explanatory power, and which are more complex than hypotheses which adequately explain the existing evidence.

---

Godless evo miracles are not adequate for all, and trying to claim a monopoly on science for your religion is no longer acceptable.

quote:

---

Do you find many fossilized?
"Yes."

---

Do you find many fossilized marine mammals with shellfish and together with fish that are positively from very very recently? I somehow think the answer will be very few if any, and there may be some doubt about their age? It would seem, at least from the fraction of a percent of the world we so far got to, that there were flood forces at work that tended to have the creatures buried together. Instinct to be together, habitats quick buried in catastrophe, and a thousand other things, none of which flood rejectors would much care for, no doubt.

quote:

---

I just read through this thread, and was unable to put my finger on any evidence you've given.

---

And the only specific almost here, which I had to raise myself, Ned more or less conceeded (mass marine fossil layers in Rockies) And I see nothing from the other side much, really at all, except for aloofness, disdain, papal edicts, sweeping praise for all the very smart evos, and the common tie that binds, a not so veiled hatred for creation, and faith, and flood, and the spirit. But that's OK I know exactlt where most are coming from on this.
There was the Bill guy Ned mentioned, but his specialty seemed to be that study I looked up, where they use fossils to claim age for rocks.

quote:

---

An urge to be together? Together with what? The same species as themselves?

---

Instinct in animals is amazing. I was driving a quit road a few weeks ago, and saw 2 baby deer, who could hardly stand, they were so young and legs wobbly. Probably born that day, maybe even minutes or hours ago. I pulled over, the mom must've signalled the young ones, as one ran a few feet into tall grass, and played dead, and the other squatted right there on the gravel roadside and did the same. The mom then crossed the road to divert our attention away from the young, and slowly moved farther away from us, pretending to eat grass, yet would be sure to stay visible, like between 2 trees, instead of behind one. I left, as I didn't want to endander the deer, and attract other vehicles, but I was impressed the the program these creatures came with built right in, even the ones maybe a few hours old! I have heard also, as I think I mentioned, how in a disaster, like a fire animals were seen to huddle together in a safe place (no I have no reference for this one) like a cave above water, and suspend their usual relationship of prey/hunter, till the danger passes, when they will kick right back into a normal mode. So, I simply suggested that in a worldwide disaster, perhaps God put it in them to know they were maybe going to die, (or possibly) and an instinct to be together with their family, or 'kind' may have kicked in. Of course where plants were buried together sch a factor would not be present.

quote:

---

And we never find marine dinosaurs in the layers with marine mammals.

---

Just last year I think it was I read headlines about a part of a marine dino incredibly well preserved found on or near a beach. I actually think it was Loch Ness? (the lake I mean, not the dino) Anyone remember the story? Anyhow, point is if this was near a beach, there could have been mammals around? Say a seal or something? And if conditions were right for fossilization, voila, we just abiout had one right there!
So why then would water dinosaurs have tended to get buried in seperate layers in the flood time?
News in Science - Antarctic dinosaurs found in icy graves - 01/03/2004
Some seem to have been found on the bottom of the sea!! Now they speculate it must have 'died and floated out to sea' ha. What does this sound like? Nevertheless about that nyada stuff, there it is, 'sleeping with the fish. hee hee.
"Thousands of kilometres away, scientists found the fossilised pelvis of a plant eater up a mountain at 3900 meters above sea level." Oh my, hat was the poor thing doing 12000 feet up? Hmm, hey, there is even evidence of water right there--wait, they say it was a "riverbed" gee, what else they gonna say? ha. I wonder if the "river" (yeah right) had any fish or muscrats? Hmm, this is just one article I pulled up. You really should be careful trying to pull people's legs! (or were you duped to?)