About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Well said and agreed. I feel you.

For these reasons and more, this is why I just post links to creationist claims being debunked now, instead of taking the time to explain it all, only to be ignored.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Agreed. It is deliberate deception of the uninformed, exploiting their naïvety.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

The problem remains there is absolutely no evidence that such a flood occurred in a regional or world scale.

I am a geologist with 50 years+ experience and traveled the world. ALL the geologic formations on the earth are deposited under normal natural geologic environments just like you have today. The only evidence for floods is local and natural regional processes related to rivers, glaciers, and tsunami sources.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Well, there were no humans around a mere 500,000 years ago. There were *other* species that existed, made tools, had large skulls, walked upright, etc. But they were NOT modern humans.

These other species no longer exist. But modern humans do.

That alone is good evidence that humans evolved from previous species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No, the problem is that you are promoting God as a liar. You simply do not understand this because you lack an education in the sciences. That is why 98% of all scientists, not just biologists and geologists accept evolution. Quite a few of them are Christians but they do not believe the myths of Genesis because they do not believe that God is a liar.

Unlike you they know better and they cannot make the same claims that you make without knowing that they were calling God a liar. You are protected from that by your own ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

And that is wrong. We have endless scientific evidence against the flood and countless evidence for the dates that are used. Why do you think that God planted endless false evidence?

For example: How many times did the Flood dry up? Was it just once?? Or twice? Or three times? How about 150,000 times? There are numerous evaporite or salt bearing strata around the world. Most of them are due to annual inundation and drying of a large area. As the water dries different salts come out of solution going from gypsum to halite. This can leave obvious annual layers. If you are ever in western Texas or eastern New Mexico you can see the Castile Formation in some roadcuts.

Mountain Beltway

Callan Bentley

blogs.agu.org

That is just one example out of millions that tells us that the Earth is very old.

 

[Valjean]

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

"Opinion of the data" is the best and most reliable source of knowledge we have. What alternatives are there?: guesswork? Ouija board? Magic 8-ball?
The most reliable, tested evidence indicates the planet's been here for billions of years.

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

*How do you know this? Evidence, please.
*Who's "they," and why did they place it at millions of years ago?
*What objective evidence do you have for Earth once being covered with water?

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.

You missed the whole point of the question. Why would the billion year old fossils be different from the hundred million hear old fossils from the ten million year old fossils?
Humans are a very recent species of animal. Mammals have been around for more than 200 million years, humans -- H. sapiens -- maybe 200 thousand.
When, and why, did mammals begin "following humans," and what do migration patterns have to do with anything?

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.

What flood? When was this flood? If it occurred when there were dolphins it was recent, if so, how did the ecosystem reëstablish itself in so short a time? Why is there no evidence of a worldwide flood?

I will let you think about that

That's your best dodge?

You need to do more research.

Polymath has done the research. It's you who know nothing about the subject. You need to do more research.

 

[Valjean]

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 is all simply....wrong!
Where did you get these crazy ideas, that conflict with all the objective, tested evidence?

 

[Twilight Hue]

"The development of radiometric dating techniques in the early 20th century allowed scientists to quantitatively measure the absolute ages of rocks and the fossils they host." Note the last part -- scientists measure the absolute ages of rocks AND the fossils THEY HOST. What do you get from this? Are the dates of the fossils imputed from the sediment or rocks around them, or can fossils themselves minus the sediment be dated?

Most fossils are impressions and don't really contain the orginal organism itself unless there are actually fragments of the organism still intact, dating the place they perished in is fairly reliable and close, even if it isn't an exact science.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Now, I have to say that a very stupid claim.

But I supposed anything I say, you would just ignore.

I think it is best, to let @shunyadragon , the resident geologist, to explain how this claim is wrong.

What I will say, is that these bending and lifting are caused by geological events (deformations of strata via one of the following activities: eg plate movements, volcanic activities, seismic activities, etc), not by any floods.

And btw...

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.

...not only you don't understand geological statra, you don't understand fossils.

If the Flood occurred between 4000 and 4500 years ago, no animal or human remains would have had time to turn into fossils.

The sediments of mineral will take far longer than 5000 years to turn into rock, and so will any animal or plants to turn into stone. It is rare to find fossils only 10-12,000 years old. Fossilisation more often take 10s to 100s of thousands of years, before full fossilisation take place. The longer it take (eg millions, 10s of millions or even 100s of millions of years), and that really dependent on what sediments of minerals that remains are buried in.

You won't find any non-avian dinosaur fossils less than 5000 years old. All non-avian dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, only the avian dinosaurs survived as birds.

So what you say here...

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.

...are nothing but utter garbage.

Earlier dinosaurs from the Jurassic period, differed to some of the clades in the Cretaceous period.

And the earlier Mesozoic period - the Triassic - there were no dinosaurs at all, but dinosaurs did evolved from older clade of primitive reptiles of the Triassic, the clade Archosauria. This same clade is where all families of crocodiles have evolved from. So the crocodiles are actually more closely to the birds than to the modern lizards and snakes.

Lizards and snakes belonged to the order Squamata, which come from the superorder Lepidosauria.

Lepidosauria and Archosauria are two completely separate taxons of the class Reptilia.

More importantly, you won't find human fossils of Homo erectus in the same layer as those of dinosaurs. That's why many of your claims are ridiculous.

 

[Valjean]

We have numerous examples of flood plains, ancient and modern, large and small, over all sorts of terrain. We know how floods shake things out, so to speak. Earth's stratigraphy is definitely not the work of a global flood.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

Did that come direct from the Preacher? If so, tell whoever to get a proper education. No reputable scientist dismisses the process and timescale of life evolving and the best explanation for this - that being evolution. Given that there is plenty of evidence for such - unlike some words in an old text. And if you prefer words in some old text over proper evidence then you are just destined for tunnel vision as being your default. But you might as well join the few others on RF doing so.

 

[Little Nipper]

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.

I believe GOD's Word. I'm certainly not the one concluding that GOD is a liar. Men of science developed their own labels over time. They were and are an inventive way of establishing a sort of library, but it's not written in stone as some would have us think.

 

[Little Nipper]

Did that come direct from the Preacher? If so, tell whoever to get a proper education. No reputable scientist dismisses the process and timescale of life evolving and the best explanation for this - that being evolution. Given that there is plenty of evidence for such - unlike some words in an old text. And if you prefer words in some old text over proper evidence then you are just destined for tunnel vision as being your default. But you might as well join the few others on RF doing so.

No, it came from my own mind. I am an independent thinker. Reputable scientists are open to research and not close minded to perceptions that undermine their own research. But I will tell you that the fossils found are generally more robust and larger then the skeletons of today's creatures. And this would imply STRONGER and longer lives than anything we witness today. And for me that reveals that nature is devolving, more sickly, and physically inferior to what it once was. You are the one with tunnel vision because you've missed so much listening to the dissertations of somewhat clueless agnostics.

 

[exchemist]

I believe GOD's Word. I'm certainly not the one concluding that GOD is a liar. Men of science developed their own labels over time. They were and are an inventive way of establishing a sort of library, but it's not written in stone as some would have us think.

How do you know what God's word is? Who is it who says the bible is definitively true and only the bible is God's word?

 

[Little Nipper]

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.

Polystrate fossil is a term not often used by uniformitarians/evolutionists because such represenst an obvious problem. I grew up by a river and it flooded regularly and close by there was a stream, and it flooded regularly also. The truth is that trees along the banks were either left standing OR they toppled over sideways out over the river/stream and were great for climbing (when I was a kid) until they finally let lose, fell in during another storm, and were swept away. Trees (petrified or not) that run vertically through many layers of geological strata suggest that such stratification happened quickly and that the fossilized creatures that are found in those layers of strata also occurred just as quickly.

I do believe in GOD and you frankly do not. So, why exactly should feel destress regarding your anger over your paradigm I find inferior and seriously lacking substance. I clearly and without any evolutionary help, witness daily a hedonistic world view that is imploding and is in so doing exonerating everything that the Bible has to say.

 

[exchemist]

Polystrate fossil is a term not often used by uniformitarians/evolutionists because such represenst an obvious problem. I grew up by a river and it flooded regularly and close by there was a stream, and it flooded regularly also. The truth is that trees along the banks were either left standing OR they toppled over sideways out over the river/stream and were great for climbing (when I was a kid) until they finally let lose, fell in during another storm, and were swept away. Trees (petrified or not) that run vertically through many layers of geological strata suggest that such stratification happened quickly and that the fossilized creatures that are found in those layers of strata also occurred just as quickly.

No, they do not present a problem, obvious or otherwise, as a moment consultation on Wikipedia would show you.

 

[Little Nipper]

How do you know what God's word is? Who is it who says the bible is definitively true and only the bible is God's word?

JESUS CHRIST! Jesus treated as historical fact the accounts in the Old Testament, which religious and atheistic skeptics think are unbelievable mythology. Such historical accounts include Adam and Eve as the first married couple (Matthew 19:3–6; Mark 10:3–9), Abel as the first prophet who was killed (Luke 11:50–51), Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:38–39), Moses and the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14), Moses and the manna from heaven to feed the Israelites in the wilderness (John 6:32–33, 49), the experiences of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28–32), the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), the miracles of Elijah (Luke 4:25–27), and Jonah and the big fish (Matthew 12:40–41). Jesus did not allegorize these accounts but took them as straightforward history, describing events that occurred just as the Old Testament describes. Jesus used these accounts to teach His disciples that the events of His death, Resurrection, and Second Coming would likewise certainly happen in time-space reality.

 

[Little Nipper]

No, they do not present a problem, obvious or otherwise, as a moment consultation on Wikipedia would show you.

And as I've so often had said to me and now I say to you ----- "So, you believe everything you read on Wikipedia?" They may present an explanation; however, it isn't the ONLY one.

 

[Little Nipper]

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.

You need Bible knowledge rather than "scientifically" sounding excuses.