The Fossil Record

[bob b]

New finding of human footprints:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0130mexican_footprints.asp

 

[Johnny]

Evidences of the flood are all over this earth -so what do the so called experts who deny the flood know, but the folly of denial?

Feh. Evidence of a flood or evidence that your backyard was once part under the sea millions of years ago? Let me ask you: did those millions and millions of sea creatures die in 40 days AND just happen to be deposited in ground there by transient floodwaters which, when receeding rapidly, did not pull most of them back out to sea?

 

[bob b]

Feh. Evidence of a flood or evidence that your backyard was once part under the sea millions of years ago? Let me ask you: did those millions and millions of sea creatures die in 40 days AND just happen to be deposited in ground there by transient floodwaters which, when receeding rapidly, did not pull most of them back out to sea?

Why do so many Christians believe the Flood lasted 40 days? Fascinating.

 

[aharvey]

FYI -anyone:

On top of the hills near us that extend for miles and miles and are forested, which are owned by Weyerhouser and the State of Washington and other private companies, there are exposed layers of not quite fossilized into hard rock sea creatures by the millions -I haven't counted them, but they are so thick where exposed that there is never an inch between one to another./QUOTE]

I'm curious what you mean by "not quite fossilized into hard rock sea creatures." Do you mean the sea creatures are not quite fossilized, or the sediment they are in is not quite hard rock?/QUOTE]
the hills extend for quite a few miles -I'd have to look up the square miles to say how many; but one can drive more than fifty miles through them in some places to get to the next town.

Evidences of the flood are all over this earth -so what do the so called experts who deny the flood know, but the folly of denial?

Evidence of floods are indeed all over this earth; that doesn't make them the same flood. Evidence of catastrophes are also all over this world; likewise, that doesn't make them all the same catastrophe, much less a single, global flood. Floods have happened all over the world in recent recorded history, as have other catastrophes, but not all at the same time, right? So why would you assume that fossils in Washington state were deposited as a result of the same single flood as fossils in Africa and everywhere else? There are patterns in the horizontal and vertical distribution of those fossils that are, to say the least, very difficult to explain as the result of a single flood event. Not to mention the strong relationship between the geographic distribution of modern organisms and that of recent fossils, you know, those that would have been most recently buried by the flood.

It may be comforting to say that "the existence of fossils around the global is consistent with a single global flood," but you should realize that the existence of fossils is just as consistent with a bunch of regional floods and other catastrophes spread out over long periods of time, and the patterns in which those fossils are distributed find ready explanation in the latter hypothesis but none in the former.

 

[aharvey]

Exactly. The evidence of the global flood is everywhere. Fossils of things are found in places that would not have been their normal habitat. The fountains of the deep broke up, it rained, you have water and mud swirling and flowing everywhere laying down these layers as the water settled and ebbed. It is the folly of denial, I agree wholeheartedly.


http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm

I wonder if bob b will have anything to say about this link (e.g, its discussion of Mt. Everest and Mt. Ararat). It's been a while since I've heard a creationist claim that mountains were at their current heights when the flood covered them. Makes for some interesting calculations as to how much water was required, and raises some interesting questions about where that much water could have come from, and where it all went afterwards. More typically these days, the creationist line is that the Earth's surface topology was very different than today, much flatter, and they even buy into plate tectonic theory, just cramming all that plate movement into the year or so duration of the flood (you'd think that would have been worth at least a brief mention in the Genesis account, given that that much geologic activity in such a short amount of time would have created far more, er, interesting and dramatic challenges to survival than would a mere flood itself).

 

[Jukia]

FYI -anyone:

On top of the hills near us that extend for miles and miles and are forested, which are owned by Weyerhouser and the State of Washington and other private companies, there are exposed layers of not quite fossilized into hard rock sea creatures by the millions -I haven't counted them, but they are so thick where exposed that there is never an inch between one to another.
the hills extend for quite a few miles -I'd have to look up the square miles to say how many; but one can drive more than fifty miles through them in some places to get to the next town.
Evidences of the flood are all over this earth -so what do the so called experts who deny the flood know, but the folly of denial?

On top of most hills near my house in eastern Connecticut is a bit of dirt and then granite. Is that evidence of Noah's flood???

 

[fool]

I got ice-age issues in Michigan.

 

[noguru]

Your words are beginning to convince me that you fly under false colors when you claim to be a Christian. I have always been under the impression that a Christian took it for granted that the first human beings were created by God.

Really Bob, I don't care what you think. As a matter of fact we have been over this issue before. I guess you are going to resort to your strategy of plausible deniabilty again. So just to freshen up your stale memory, I will explain my beliefs again to you (not like its going to sink in this time).

I believe in God through a leap of blind faith. I openly and honestly admit this. Since I do believe in God my philosophical world view does see Him as the creator of the universe, and by virtue of this the creator of humankind. I do realize however that from the view of natural philosophy, since there is no empirical evidence for God, we cannot use Him as a factor in any equation regarding the material sciences. It's really quite simple Bob. But you seem to keep loosing track of this very simple concept. Do you understand now? :juggle:

 

[noguru]

I got ice-age issues in Michigan.

They also have them in Cape Cod, and some of the other islands near Long Island Sound. They come in the form of kettle ponds.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

On top of most hills near my house in eastern Connecticut is a bit of dirt and then granite. Is that evidence of Noah's flood???

No, silly. That is evidence of the creation. :ha:
Now if they had layers of sea creatures fossilized -or almost fossilized on them- or land creatures jumbled in masses together, washed together by the force of great waters and buried in the mud of a great flood, then that would be evidence of the flood that covered the whole earth and left billions of dead 'things' laid down in rock layers all over the earth.

 

[noguru]

No, silly. That is evidence of the creation. :ha:
Now if they had layers of sea creatures fossilized -or almost fossilized on them- or land creatures jumbled in masses together, washed together by the force of great waters and buried in the mud of a great flood, then that would be evidence of the flood that covered the whole earth and left billions of dead 'things' laid down in rock layers all over the earth.

Well if the sea creature fossils you mentioned on hills were left by a global flood, why wouldn't there be sea creature fossils on the low rolling hills of eastern CT?

So let me get this straight, when there are fossilized sea creatures on a mountain that's evidence of a global flood? When there aren't any fossilized sea creatures on a mountain that is evidence of "supernatural" creation? How convenient.

 

[bob b]

Really Bob, I don't care what you think. As a matter of fact we have been over this issue before. I guess you are going to resort to your strategy of plausible deniabilty again. So just to freshen up your stale memory, I will explain my beliefs again to you (not like its going to sink in this time).

I believe in God through a leap of blind faith. I openly and honestly admit this. Since I do believe in God my philosophical world view does see Him as the creator of the universe, and by virtue of this the creator of humankind. I do realize however that from the view of natural philosophy, since there is no empirical evidence for God, we cannot use Him as a factor in any equation regarding the material sciences. It's really quite simple Bob. But you seem to keep loosing track of this very simple concept. Do you understand now? :juggle:

No.

The beliefs you describe are called "theism" (i.e. belief in God).

Christianity is more than belief in God. Christian beliefs derive from a set of books collectively known as "The Bible". The first of these books starts out "In the beginning ... "

So apparently you at least believe the first sentence. Am I correct?

 

[noguru]

No.

The beliefs you describe are called "theism" (i.e. belief in God).

Christianity is more than belief in God. Christian beliefs derive from a set of books collectively known as "The Bible". The first of these books starts out "In the beginning ... "

So apparently you at least believe the first sentence. Am I correct?

Bob, I believe all of it. I believe that Jesus was God in the flesh. I believe that he died for our sins. I believe that he rose again. I believe that he validated other scripture while he walked on this earth. The only difference you and I have is what parts we view as literary device and what parts we view as a literal scientifically accurate historical narrative.

And yes Bob, we have been over this many times. We go through the same motions every time, and it seems to get us nowhere. So spare me your newest attempt at your absent minded inquisition. It is not my fault that your memory is failing in your old age. Actually this is quite ironic, because in the inquisition they tried to convert people to Christianity. And it sure seems to me that you are trying to convert people out of Christianity if they don't agree with your exact view of Genesis. Hmmm I'm starting to wonder whose side you are really on. :think:

 

[bob b]

Bob, I believe all of it. I believe that Jesus was God in the flesh. I believe that he died for our sins. I believe that he rose again. I believe that he validated other scripture while he walked on this earth.

You do well to believe these things for they are the mark of a genuine Christian.

The only difference you and I have is what parts we view as literary device and what parts we view as a literal scientifically accurate historical narrative.

Don't forget the other side of the coin, for you believe in evolution, the doctine that claims that natural forces were sufficient to generate all life on Earth from hypothetical primitive protocells, which I totally rejected on scientific grounds before I became a Christian believer.

And yes Bob, wee have been over this many times. We go through the same motions every time, and it seems to get us nowhere. So spare me your newest attempt at your absent minded inquisition. It is not my fault that your memory is failing in your old age.

The "shoot-the-messenger" tactic.

Actually this is quite ironic, because in the inquisition they tried to convert people to Christianity.

Christians are commanded to preach the Gospel and convert people to Christianity. Obviously the inquisition screwed up in that regard.

And it sure seems to me that you are trying to convert people out of Christianity if they don't agree with your exact view of Genesis.

Genesis is the foundation of Christianity, because unless Adam and Eve fell and hence caused all of their descendents to inherit a sinful nature it would not have been necessary for Christ to come and bear the sins of humanity.

Mere animals do not sin, because they have no free will to choose what is right or wrong as humans do.

It may be possible for you to retain your faith as you currently state you possess, but your actions here help convince others that perhaps the evolutionists are correct that God is not a necessary hypothesis to explain all that is found in nature. Pure Naturalism will suffice thank you without believing, as fool might say: "in a fictional being who demanded blood in order to wash away the fiction of sins which are merely "harmless preferences".
After all, who would want to voluntarily submit to the will of another who might be just as fictional as the players in the Genesis symbolic stories? Patsy.

No. God is real, just as the characters in the stories that God inspired in order to tell us the real account of creation to counter the story taught in our schools as scientific truth.

You do not believe God's account and hence feel obligated to "symbolize it", because you have too much faith in the infallibility of scientists to determine what happened in the distant past. Let us hope others do not follow your example.

I was lucky that knowledge of DNA came along in time to free me from the otherwise attractive stories that appeal to the innate longing of humans to be "their own man" (center of their own universe).

 

[thelaqachisnext]

Well if the sea creature fossils you mentioned on hills were left by a global flood, why wouldn't there be sea creature fossils on the low rolling hills of eastern CT?

So let me get this straight, when there are fossilized sea creatures on a mountain that's evidence of a global flood? When there aren't any fossilized sea creatures on a mountain that is evidence of "supernatural" creation? How convenient.

Duh!

As to the hills of CT -have you investigated them all, personally, and can you say -under oath- that there are no fossillized sea creatures on those mountains?

But as to your remarks; have you seen what great moving waves of water do? try looking at the effects of just a tsunami and show me where the evidence of destruction is evenly distributed!

You want to imagine that there should have been a uniform distribution of masses of land animals and of sea creatures that were all caught and buried by the massive mountains of great mud and left high and dry -or low and dry- after the waters receded? -get serious!

 

[thelaqachisnext]

No, silly. That is evidence of the creation. :ha:
Now if they had layers of sea creatures fossilized -or almost fossilized on them- or land creatures jumbled in masses together, washed together by the force of great waters and buried in the mud of a great flood, then that would be evidence of the flood that covered the whole earth and left billions of dead 'things' laid down in rock layers all over the earth.

I just wanted to add that the above is a quote from Ken Ham that Buddy Davis made a song about -don't mean to plagarize, the phrase has just become part of my vocabulary and I should have put it in quotes because some who read this are not familiar with the source.

 

[noguru]

You do well to believe these things for they are the mark of a genuine Christian.



Don't forget the other side of the coin, for you believe in evolution, the doctine that claims that natural forces were sufficient to generate all life on Earth from hypothetical primitive protocells, which I totally rejected on scientific grounds before I became a Christian believer.



The "shoot-the-messenger" tactic.



Christians are commanded to preach the Gospel and convert people to Christianity. Obviously the inquisition screwed up in that regard.



Genesis is the foundation of Christianity, because unless Adam and Eve fell and hence caused all of their descendents to inherit a sinful nature it would not have been necessary for Christ to come and bear the sins of humanity.

Mere animals do not sin, because they have no free will to choose what is right or wrong as humans do.

It may be possible for you to retain your faith as you currently state you possess, but your actions here help convince others that perhaps the evolutionists are correct that God is not a necessary hypothesis to explain all that is found in nature. Pure Naturalism will suffice thank you without believing, as fool might say: "in a fictional being who demanded blood in order to wash away the fiction of sins which are merely "harmless preferences".
After all, who would want to voluntarily submit to the will of another who might be just as fictional as the players in the Genesis symbolic stories? Patsy.

No. God is real, just as the characters in the stories that God inspired in order to tell us the real account of creation to counter the story taught in our schools as scientific truth.

You do not believe God's account and hence feel obligated to "symbolize it", because you have too much faith in the infallibility of scientists to determine what happened in the distant past. Let us hope others do not follow your example.

I was lucky that knowledge of DNA came along in time to free me from the otherwise attractive stories that appeal to the innate longing of humans to be "their own man" (center of their own universe).

Well Bob, there is the fundamental difference between you and I. I believe in God and Jesus because I want to, without being forced into it by fear of eternal damnation or the need to supplement my ignorance of the natural world. You believe in God and Jesus because of your fear of eternal damnation and to supplement what you do not understand about the natural world. Or at least this is what you seem to claim.

 

[noguru]

Duh!

As to the hills of CT -have you investigated them all, personally, and can you say -under oath- that there are no fossillized sea creatures on those mountains?

But as to your remarks; have you seen what great moving waves of water do? try looking at the effects of just a tsunami and show me where the evidence of destruction is evenly distributed!

You want to imagine that there should have been a uniform distribution of masses of land animals and of sea creatures that were all caught and buried by the massive mountains of great mud and left high and dry -or low and dry- after the waters receded? -get serious!

What I have seen can be better explained by long ages, many multiple local floods, and catastrophes compounded with long periods of climatic stability.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

What I have seen can be better explained by long ages, many multiple local floods, and catastrophes compounded with long periods of climatic stability.

So explain to us just how to keep, oh, let's say, for instance, a jelly fish, completely intact for long ages while it is 'becoming' a fossil, the cells of it's delicate body remaining perfectly intact so that one could slice the fossilized jelly fish 'made rock' and see the cell structure in a perfectly preserved state

 

[noguru]

So explain to us just how to keep, oh, let's say, for instance, a jelly fish, completely intact for long ages while it is 'becoming' a fossil, the cells of it's delicate body remaining perfectly intact so that one could slice the fossilized jelly fish 'made rock' and see the cell structure in a perfectly preserved state

One way that fossils are created is during large, medium or small cataclysmic events. Even in a relatively stable biome small cataclysmic events cause fossilization. Rapid burial by sedimentary buildup in water, or by sandstorms in arid terrestrial climates are the most common events that cause fossilization. Also there is immersion in substances that have little or no oxygen.

Actually organisms like jellyfish that have little or no hardened tissue (like bone or cartilage) are not common fossils. They do in rare instances become fossilized. Are you by chance referring to this AIG article?

AIG's take on the fossilized jellyfish

I know this seem to be strong evidence for a global deluge on the surface. But a closer analyses shows that this is a less likely scenario than the scenario presented by those who propose a less sever cataclysm. Here is a good explanation;

From another site that I will not mention, unless you would like a PM.

I presume you are referring to the fossil jellyfish in wisconsin. I am sure your source told you that there are mudcracks above and below the fossil jellyfish - clear evidence of drying out thus proving that these fossils could not have been formed during a global flood. There is also other clear evidence that these fossils were formed on a beach such as characteristic ripples and rill marks. The hypothesis of a stranding on a shoreline coincides well with what we know of mass jellyfish strandings today and the form of the fossils is the same as those made by jellyfish expose subaerially or intermittantly wetted and not rapidly buried. So why are the fossils there? the explanations given in the paper are:

"(1) lack of erosional scouring of fossiliferous layers by poststranding tides, waves, and wind; (2) minimal scavenging by terrestrial and intertidal organisms; and (3) little or no postburial bioturbation."

You should ask the question why did the creationists that told you these jellyfish were evidence of a deluge when there was clear evidence that they are not? They tricked you into bearing false witness (claiming fossil jellyfish as evidence of a deluge) by hiding the facts from you - is this the behaviour i should expect from christians?

Also remember that conventional geology does not prohibit rapid burial, it just says it tends to be a rare event - and it is. Well preserved fossils are exceptionally rare. Nearly all fossils are just fragments of the hard parts of organisms - for example conodonts which are the teeth of a fish which are know from millions of examples throughout the world yet a fosil preserving the soft parts of the organism has only recently been found - this indicates that most organisms in the past were not rapidly buried but decayed leaving only their more resilliant bits behind.

Hagadorn, J.W., Dott, R.H., and Damrow, D., 2002, Stranded on an Upper Cambrian shoreline: Medusae from Central Wisconsin: Geology, v. 30, p. 147-150.