About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Valjean]

Claiming 'the appearance of age' in the geologic evidence concludes God Created false evidence for humans to discover. Kind of accusing God of being dishonest

Why would God plant false evidence and then condemn us for falling for it? That's just cruel.
Apparently He likes toying with us.

 

[Polymath257]

Quarks.
What's your point?

And electrons. You can include some gluons (which hold the quarks together).

 

[Subduction Zone]

And electrons. You can include some gluons (which hold the quarks together).

I read in the latest atomic model that gluons have been replaced with Flex Seal™.

Amazon.com : flex. seal

 

[Little Nipper]

That is not true. Now you have just demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Are you willing to learn as to what is and what is not evidence? You need to start somewhere and that is very good place to start.

You are also using nonsensical terms that are simply wrong. Evolution does not work that way. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. You for example, are still an ape. That is if you claim to be a human being. All human beings are Great Apes. Which are also part of the general family of apes. Speciation is just a split between populations. At one time in the past we were part of the same population as chimpanzees and bonobos.

But there is no point into going into the evidence until you understand what is and what is not evidence.

It absolutely is true! Bacteria is still bacteria. Virus remain virus. Mold is still mold. Cats are still cats. Dogs are still dogs. Humans are humans and have always been human, but because of the FALL early on, humans suffer from the results of sin. All anyone can honestly say is that there are many species which have become extinct; however, no new KINDS have ever sprang from that of another. Evolution doesn't work. Get over the satanically inspired humanistic nonsense designed to throw away GOD's Word and exhort human thought.

 

[Polymath257]

It absolutely is true! Bacteria is still bacteria. Virus remain virus. Mold is still mold. Cats are still cats. Dogs are still dogs. Humans are humans and have always been human, but because of the FALL early on, humans suffer from the results of sin. All anyone can honestly say is that there are many species which have become extinct; however, no new KINDS have ever sprang from that of another. Evolution doesn't work. Get over the satanically inspired humanistic nonsense designed to throw away GOD's Word and exhort human thought.

But if you go back 50 million years, there were no cats. There *were* other mammal species, but none that are alive today. In particular, there were mammals that have characteristics in their anatomy in common with both felines and canids.

If you go a bit later, you will find 'cats' and 'dogs' (general categories, not specific species), but none of the species of either are still alive and none of those alive now appeared at that time.

Over time, the species that are alive change. They are always more similar to species closer in time and more different from species farther away in time. That *is* evolution. It was the discovery of this fact that lead to the rejection of the flood myth. The actual facts on the ground simply don't agree with that myth. Darwin just proposed a mechanism for the changes that were already generally known.

if you go back a mere 500,000 years, there were no modern humans. None. But there *were* other species that used tools, stood upright, and had large brains. They were *similar* to modern humans, but a different species. if you go back further in time, the species around looked less and less like modern humans and more and more like the 'typical great ape'.

How does your theology explain the facts on the ground?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It absolutely is true! Bacteria is still bacteria. Virus remain virus. Mold is still mold. Cats are still cats. Dogs are still dogs. Humans are humans and have always been human, but because of the FALL early on, humans suffer from the results of sin. All anyone can honestly say is that there are many species which have become extinct; however, no new KINDS have ever sprang from that of another. Evolution doesn't work. Get over the satanically inspired humanistic nonsense designed to throw away GOD's Word and exhort human thought.

So what?..You are sill a eukaryote. There are no "kinds". Creationists cannot even define that term properly.

And what makes you think w evolution does not work?

Can you tell me why you keep claiming that your God is a liar?

 

[Little Nipper]

So what?..You are sill a eukaryote. There are no "kinds". Creationists cannot even define that term properly.

And what makes you think w evolution does not work?

Can you tell me why you keep claiming that your God is a liar?

Are you still an infant?
You are promoting GOD as a liar, not me. In fact you seem bent on derailing anything that places the theory of evolution in a bad light by switching the subject. "Human" is an example of KIND.

 

[Little Nipper]

But if you go back 50 million years, there were no cats. There *were* other mammal species, but none that are alive today. In particular, there were mammals that have characteristics in their anatomy in common with both felines and canids.

If you go a bit later, you will find 'cats' and 'dogs' (general categories, not specific species), but none of the species of either are still alive and none of those alive now appeared at that time.

Over time, the species that are alive change. They are always more similar to species closer in time and more different from species farther away in time. That *is* evolution. It was the discovery of this fact that lead to the rejection of the flood myth. The actual facts on the ground simply don't agree with that myth. Darwin just proposed a mechanism for the changes that were already generally known.

if you go back a mere 500,000 years, there were no modern humans. None. But there *were* other species that used tools, stood upright, and had large brains. They were *similar* to modern humans, but a different species. if you go back further in time, the species around looked less and less like modern humans and more and more like the 'typical great ape'.

How does your theology explain the facts on the ground?

BUT your belief promotes millions of years. My beliefs only establishes about 6000 thousand years, and all the confusion is the result of the FLOOD that evolutionists and uniformitarians reject. In the FLOOD, mammals and humans would be among the last inhabitants of earth to drown in bulk. Aquatic animals would be among the first, and birds would likely be among the last to be harmed by the FLOOD. Then all the minerals, metals, volcanism, etc., would bury various animals in layers. Dinosaurs are among the largest fossils and would likely be the easiest to find buried in mass.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you still an infant?
You are promoting GOD as a liar, not me. In fact you seem bent on derailing anything that places the theory of evolution in a bad light by switching the subject. "Human" is an example of KIND.

Why didn't you answer the questions posted to you?

Human may be a type of "kind" according to the Bible, but that's a meaningless word when it comes to science and evolution. Homo sapiens is the species to which modern humans belong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

BUT your belief promotes millions of years. My beliefs only establishes about 6000 thousand years, and all the confusion is the result of the FLOOD that evolutionists and uniformitarians reject. In the FLOOD, mammals and humans would be among the last inhabitants of earth to drown in bulk. Aquatic animals would be among the first, and birds would likely be among the last to be harmed by the FLOOD. Then all the minerals, metals, volcanism, etc., would bury various animals in layers. Dinosaurs are among the largest fossils and would likely be the easiest to find buried in mass.

Cool story, bro. Problem is, it doesn't make sense and the evidence we have doesn't support it.

 

[Polymath257]

BUT your belief promotes millions of years.

No, the evidence shows millions of years.

My beliefs only establishes about 6000 thousand years, and all the confusion is the result of the FLOOD that evolutionists and uniformitarians reject.

Scientists reject the flood because the evidence shows it never happened. The evidence came first, the rejection after.

In the FLOOD, mammals and humans would be among the last inhabitants of earth to drown in bulk.

Why would that be the case? And why would it be different species at different levels?

Aquatic animals would be among the first, and birds would likely be among the last to be harmed by the FLOOD. Then all the minerals, metals, volcanism, etc., would bury various animals in layers. Dinosaurs are among the largest fossils and would likely be the easiest to find buried in mass.

Which is directly shown to be wrong by the *actual* fossil record. Birds came about midway with whales and dolphins fairly late. Dinosaurs were also midway, not early.

Also, why are smaller mammals buried later while larger reptiles (like dinosaurs) buried earlier? But smaller dinosaurs (smaller than the later large mammals) were buried earlier?

Sorry, but this scenario makes no sense when compared to the actual layers. Remember that this inconsistency between the flood story and the actual evidence was discovered by people who initially believed in the flood story and fully expected to find evidence supporting it. Instead, they found it to be directly against the actual evidence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

BUT your belief promotes millions of years. My beliefs only establishes about 6000 thousand years, and all the confusion is the result of the FLOOD that evolutionists and uniformitarians reject. In the FLOOD, mammals and humans would be among the last inhabitants of earth to drown in bulk. Aquatic animals would be among the first, and birds would likely be among the last to be harmed by the FLOOD. Then all the minerals, metals, volcanism, etc., would bury various animals in layers. Dinosaurs are among the largest fossils and would likely be the easiest to find buried in mass.

Oh, Lordy...here we go again. Reminder to self -- don't even bother!

 

[Valjean]

BUT your belief promotes millions of years. My beliefs only establishes about 6000 thousand years, and all the confusion is the result of the FLOOD that evolutionists and uniformitarians reject. In the FLOOD, mammals and humans would be among the last inhabitants of earth to drown in bulk. Aquatic animals would be among the first, and birds would likely be among the last to be harmed by the FLOOD. Then all the minerals, metals, volcanism, etc., would bury various animals in layers. Dinosaurs are among the largest fossils and would likely be the easiest to find buried in mass.

Butthere was no worldwide flood, was there? It's all a myth. Such a flood would have left evidence, and there is none. Such a flood would have been precluded by physics, geology, biology and many other disciplines. The only "evidence" for such a flood is mythology.

 

[Little Nipper]

No, the evidence shows millions of years.

Opinion of the data shows millions of years. GOD wasn't asked.

Scientists reject the flood because the evidence shows it never happened. The evidence came first, the rejection after.

Nonsense! They say the entire earth was once entire covered with water. They just place it at millions of years ago.

Why would that be the case? And why would it be different species at different levels?

Because some would be more inland, and some would live in marshland. Humans would climb to higher locations. Mammals would likely tend to follow the humans.

Which is directly shown to be wrong by the *actual* fossil record. Birds came about midway with whales and dolphins fairly late. Dinosaurs were also midway, not early.

Whales and Dolphins are aquatic and therefore some of the weaker may have died due to the length of the FLOOD. Birds would have died due to lack of places to find rest.

Also, why are smaller mammals buried later while larger reptiles (like dinosaurs) buried earlier? But smaller dinosaurs (smaller than the later large mammals) were buried earlier?

I will let you think about that

Sorry, but this scenario makes no sense when compared to the actual layers.

You need to do more research.

 

[Little Nipper]

Butthere was no worldwide flood, was there? It's all a myth. Such a flood would have left evidence, and there is none. Such a flood would have been precluded by physics, geology, biology and many other disciplines. The only "evidence" for such a flood is mythology.

The FLOOD left geological layers of minerals and rocks ---- as well as, the fossils that come to be only by quick burial. The FLOOD resulted in the bending and lifting of the geological layers. A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum. The word polystrate is not a standard geological term because evolutionists and uniformitarians are rather embarrassed by such fossils.

 

[Polymath257]

Opinion of the data shows millions of years. GOD wasn't asked.

The data shows what it shows. That takes precidence over your beliefs about what God did or did not say.

Nonsense! They say the entire earth was once entire covered with water. They just place it at millions of years ago.

Wrong. Not even close to being correct. The early investigators initially were expecting to see evidence of a worldwide flood. Instead, they found evidence directly contradicting such.

Because some would be more inland, and some would live in marshland. Humans would climb to higher locations. Mammals would likely tend to follow the humans.

Again, that does not explain why none of some species appear at lower levels and none of others appear at higher levels. Why would mammals like lions follow the humans up a mountain? Or, for that matter, sloths, elephants, etc?

Whales and Dolphins are aquatic and therefore some of the weaker may have died due to the length of the FLOOD. Birds would have died due to lack of places to find rest.

So, your initial prediction that aquatic species would appear lower is contradicted. Are you now proposing a different hypothesis?

Why, for example, would ALL species of ichtyosaurs be at lower levels and ALL species of whales at higher levels (even those whales that prefer deeper oceans)?

I will let you think about that

Oh, I have.

You need to do more research.

I have done the research. The flood story is directly contradicted by the actual evidence. There simply was no global flood.

 

[Polymath257]

The FLOOD left geological layers of minerals and rocks ---- as well as, the fossils that come to be only by quick burial.

Except a flood *cannot* leave the deposits due to *drying* that appear both under and over others that show water. A flood *cannot* leave remains like the white cliffs of Dover, which require millions of years to form (because the type of deposition cannot happen quickly).

The FLOOD resulted in the bending and lifting of the geological layers. A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum. The word polystrate is not a standard geological term because evolutionists and uniformitarians are rather embarrassed by such fossils.

Keep reading the wikipedia article. Go to the next paragraphs, which explain the mechanisms for these to be formed.

Polystrate fossil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, geologists are quite aware of such fossils and what they imply. But they do NOT imply a global flood nor do they contradict modern geology.

There is no embarrassment, although the creationists *should* be embarrased by how they distort things.

 

[exchemist]

The FLOOD left geological layers of minerals and rocks ---- as well as, the fossils that come to be only by quick burial. The FLOOD resulted in the bending and lifting of the geological layers. A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum. The word polystrate is not a standard geological term because evolutionists and uniformitarians are rather embarrassed by such fossils.

This makes no sense at all, to anyone with any knowledge of science. I suppose you might just get away with it in a church meeting of people who never learnt any science, but try it on elsewhere and you will get funny looks.

There are no problems accounting for upright fossils, contrary to creationist misinformation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The FLOOD left geological layers of minerals and rocks ---- as well as, the fossils that come to be only by quick burial. The FLOOD resulted in the bending and lifting of the geological layers. A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum. The word polystrate is not a standard geological term because evolutionists and uniformitarians are rather embarrassed by such fossils.

No, it didn't. These are super old creationist talking points that have been debunked for years now.

The only people who should be embarrassed, are the ones still using these tired points as some sort of "gotcha."

CC331: Polystrate fossils and deposition

CC335: Vertical whale fossil

CC362: Vast beds of fossils

CC361.3: Contorted Fossils

CD102.1: Lewis Overthrust

CD200: Uniformitarianism

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, it didn't. These are super old creationist talking points that have been debunked for years now.

The only people who should be embarrassed, are the ones still using these tired points as some sort of "gotcha."

CC331: Polystrate fossils and deposition

CC335: Vertical whale fossil

CC362: Vast beds of fossils

CC361.3: Contorted Fossils

CD102.1: Lewis Overthrust

CD200: Uniformitarianism

The reason I don't want to get involved in these conversations anymore is because they really do anger me. I'm not angry that everybody hasn't had the chance or ability to study the science -- that is what it is. But those of us who have are well aware of some reasonably well-trained minds who, because of their religious pursuasions, go to a lot of trouble to actually subvert the science you refer to here, and much more beside. These people should know better. They should understand, as the Baha'is claim to (notice my wording) that if what they believe contradicts what they know to be so, then they are fooling themselves and others.

That people who should know better go out of their way to provide false information with the purpose of proselytization makes me truly angry. Some of those write for "The Institute for Creation Research," which it is obvious that @Little Nipper has made reference to, through his use of the term "polystrate fossil," which is of their coinage.