Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,044 Year: 5,301/9,624 Month: 326/323 Week: 170/160 Day: 6/38 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists try to find and study fossils?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 117 of 182 (698296)
05-05-2013 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by jar
05-05-2013 9:17 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
I have. I have actually gone out and look at fossils in situ. I have actually looked at canyon wills and cuts, at new mountains and old mountains.
A perfect example of how actual experience of such things doesn't give you any understanding of them.
I have helped on archeological digs that went back to well over 8000 years, long before the supposed flood where there was absolutely no signs of a flood and other similar aged sites where there were signs of numerous floods.
You cannot look at an archaeological dig or anything else and conclude that it's 8000 years old or any particular age, that's not something one can observe, it's all theory you impose on what you are looking at. And of course like all delusional OE evolutionists you have no idea what sort of evidence THE Flood would have produced and you stupidly think it could be compared to local floods.
When someone honestly examines the evidence there can be no other conclusion than that the Biblical Flood never happened and that the fossil and just plain dirt confirm that the Biblical Flood never happened.
But you haven't said one thing about any actual evidence, and what you might have seen in the field you saw through theory-colored glasses so your conclusion is rubbish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 9:17 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 10:02 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 120 of 182 (698299)
05-05-2013 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by jar
05-05-2013 9:55 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
The whole stack is chock full of fossils even if some don't contain fossils, what a joke. And the EVIDENCE to an HONEST observer is that they ALL had to have been produced by the same process, which happens to be well accounted for by a worldwide Flood. The idea of different processes is that Rube Goldbergish idiocy I was referring to which is what your idiotic thread about the Grand Canyon was all about. An HONEST observer who can actually SEE REALITY would see that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 9:55 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 10:14 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 121 of 182 (698300)
05-05-2013 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by jar
05-05-2013 10:02 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Change leaves evidence.
Dig a trench and observe the layers of soil.
Dig a second trench a few yards away and observe the layers of soil.
First trench shows uniform soil top to bottom.
Second trench shows a series of alternating layers.
This is not something one would actually find in reality a few yards apart. As usual you are making stuff up rather than giving actual evidence, you the master complainer about others not giving evidnece. You're always the worst offender. In fact I don't think you even know what evidence is.
You can see from that that different processes happened at the two locations over time.
Even if such a situation did occur -- show me one -- the idea that one could see from it "different processes happening over time" is absolutely without warrant. Where are you getting such idiotic ideas?
You most certainly can date materials found in the two trenches, particularly if the material is only 10-50,000 years old.
Oh master of unsupported assertions. Good grief jar that's ALL you do assert assert assert. Where's your evidence?
PS: IF PERCY WANTS THIS THREAD TO STOP BEING ABOUT THE FLOOD HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO CALL OFF THE ANTI-CREATIONIST DOGS.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 10:02 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 10:21 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 126 of 182 (698312)
05-05-2013 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by jar
05-05-2013 10:14 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
But I note that you never presented the model or mechanisms to explain what is actually seen.
How odd, I'm sure I did but I'll have to check later.
How does the Biblical Flood produce granite layers?
It doesn't, the volcano beneath the canyon did that in conjunction with the enormous weight of the stack of wet sediments above which at that point was at least two miles in depth or height.
How does the Biblical Flood produce igneous layers and intrusions?
Again, the volcano beneath the canyon did that.
How does the Biblical Flood produce limestone layers?
By transporting and deposting bazillions of sea creatures, coccoliths for instance, or crinoids, in a layer which is then pressed down by the weight of other layers that accumulate over it as the Flood progresses.
How does the Biblical Flood sort the fossils by type?
Presumably by some hydraulic principle that has nothing to do with the "type" as understood by evolutionists.
How does the Biblical Flood produce alternating layers?
The same way rivers do.
See this is the issue Faith, you answer to all that is just "the Flud Didit".
Oh no it's not and it never was, I do have answers and I gave them above, and not only now but many times in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 10:14 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 12:41 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 127 of 182 (698313)
05-05-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by jar
05-05-2013 10:21 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Oh I see, bait and switch, or do you still beat your wife?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 10:21 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 128 of 182 (698314)
05-05-2013 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by JonF
05-05-2013 10:34 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Perhaps you are correct about the most proper form, but he referenced his own book because that's where he discussed the research he did to show the directional orientation of the nautiloids. Referencing books is standard scholarly procedure as I've always understood it. Most likely his space was limited in the article.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by JonF, posted 05-05-2013 10:34 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by JonF, posted 05-05-2013 1:16 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 129 of 182 (698316)
05-05-2013 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by JonF
05-05-2013 10:34 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
It's funny how creationists are so often given the ad hominem treatment here, finding fault with something, anything at all, about them personally or how their work was presented, instead of any attempt to deal with the argument itself. Surely Austin described his conclusions from the nautiloid orientations in the article and if they demonstrate what he claims for them why not address that? Because you can't stand it if a creationist is ever right about something, you have to hope to find out that he's wrong and that's all you care about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by JonF, posted 05-05-2013 10:34 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by JonF, posted 05-05-2013 1:31 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 131 of 182 (698318)
05-05-2013 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by jar
05-05-2013 12:41 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
I have a different theory from yours, jar, you don't like it but that's the way it is. I've argued for the formation of the granite and the igneous intrustions and the schist as well by the volcanic eruption beneath the canyon, for which all that is evidence, but also the fact that the whole area is raised in a mound is further evidence for it. I also believe that eruption caused the breaking up and washing away of the upper strata above the current Permian rim, the scouring effects of the chunks of strata being what carved out the canyon to such a prodigious width and depth.
It's my analysis of what I see on the diagrams. I can just as well say that establishment geology "makes up ...." as you can of my theory, and with better justification.
How did the Flood sort the sediments at all is what you are asking? I don't know. How does the ocean lay down sand grains to make beaches? I figure the sorting done by the Flood must have a lot to do with the fact that ocean water is naturally sorted into layers, and also currents and also wave action. The Coconino sandstone extends almost all the way across the North American continent from west to east, suggesting it was deposited by waves, or one great wave. Other layers show a similar if not quite as extensive formation.
As you point out, rivers don't produce layers in just one event, and Neither would the Flood have produced layers in just one event. Even one layer may be laid down by a succession of waves, but certainly the different sediments are carried on successive waves. The Flood would have had many stages, and the deposition of the fossil-laden sediments was probably in the end stage.
I believe I've come to my theory honestly, from reading up on various aspects of geology and studying diagrams of the Grand Canyon among other thingsl.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 12:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 1:22 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 134 of 182 (698322)
05-05-2013 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by JonF
05-05-2013 1:16 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
The orientation of the nautiloids was only one factor discussed to demonstrate the catastrophic nature of their deposition. The fact that every size and age of nautiloid is represented is another piece of evidence, showing that the whole population of nautiloids died at the same time, not just the aged or whatever would have occurred randomly and normally. Also the huge number of them, in a limestone layer spread over thousands of square miles in the canyon and out to Nevada and California, is evidence for catastrophic burial.
No evidence for catastrophic burial or a mass kill? He must be joking.
All this is covered in that video by Paul Garner I linked back a ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by JonF, posted 05-05-2013 1:16 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by JonF, posted 05-05-2013 1:40 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 136 of 182 (698324)
05-05-2013 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by jar
05-05-2013 1:22 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
All the layers were produced by the SAME process and not different processes, and as for separated layers of the same sediment recurring in a given stack, why not? The Flood waters picked up whatever from wherever, limestone makings here, sandstone makings there, shale makings somewhere else, then more limestone makings from another source and so on and so forth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 1:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2013 1:40 PM Faith has replied
 Message 139 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 1:41 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 140 of 182 (698329)
05-05-2013 1:44 PM


Back later today to answer all my "fans." Want to watch the Garner video first too. Cheers.

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 145 of 182 (698351)
05-05-2013 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by foreveryoung
05-05-2013 2:12 PM


Where are the descendants or cousins of T-rex? Where is the microevolution that descended from her?
The usual idea is that they became extinct not long after the Flood because they couldn't survive in the changed environment.
But T Rex specifically is understood to have been a variety. There's no reason to think T Rex was on the ark, merely members of that Kind who all share the same genome. Before the Flood bottleneck there was obviously a lot more variation possible within a Kind.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by foreveryoung, posted 05-05-2013 2:12 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 146 of 182 (698352)
05-05-2013 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Percy
05-05-2013 2:20 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Austin is well known among creationists for his study of the nautioloids. I don't know anything about why his work isn't in the regular journals, and I'm not really into defending anything about the thesis of this thread anyway. But I'll review the video and get back to the thread from there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 05-05-2013 2:20 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 05-06-2013 8:06 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 147 of 182 (698354)
05-05-2013 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Dr Adequate
05-05-2013 1:40 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
All the layers were produced by the SAME process and not different processes ...
Then why do they look different? For example, why did the SAME process produce fossil footprints in some formations but not others? If magic water produces dinosaur footprints in mud, why doesn't it produce similar footprints in all mud? It's the same water and the same magic, is it not?
They only "look different" in the sense that the alphabet blocks in the collection have different letters and there's a stain on one and the dog's tooth marks on another, but otherwise they are identical.
The sedimentary layers are all originally horizontal, remarkably flat-topped, remarkably without the sort of erosion one finds on surface land, and so on and so forth, showing their having been produced by the same processes having roughly the same history.
The usual explanation for the footprints is that there was a time gap between the laying down of the separate layers and some creatures were still alive.
Or it's a hoax.
And your ridiculous remark that the water would have produced such phenomena really is beneath you or ought to be
========================================================.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2013 1:40 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by foreveryoung, posted 05-05-2013 10:50 PM Faith has replied
 Message 160 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2013 12:02 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 149 of 182 (698357)
05-05-2013 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by foreveryoung
05-05-2013 10:50 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
I guess you haven't read a thing I've written on this subject. I've discussed the Great Unconformity many times and of course I disagree with the explanation you've given. It's off topic in this thread but I'll be happy to spell it out for you again on another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by foreveryoung, posted 05-05-2013 10:50 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by foreveryoung, posted 05-06-2013 5:46 PM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024