Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Fossil Record


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Africa
  • Interests:Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket

I believe creationism needs a better explanation for the geological/fossil stratigraphy than the current flood model.

 

Here is a brief summary of an alternative explanation for the fossil layers:

 

God created land out the ocean, this was a small continental landmass in Siberia. God seeded the land and the ocean with life, this is the Cambrian Explosion. The oceans were largely anoxic and sulfuric and so trilobites were everywhere, they coped with that environment. Due to massive lifespans compared to today, its the bacteria that died off in large quantities for many years before the first trilobites even died. This explains why all life was created at the same time, yet bacteria precedes trilobites in the fossil record.  As the world got colder, ice caps grew and more land appeared. As the land appeared, shoreline fossils were the first to appear and so amphibuous fish/insects etc are always found above trilobites. This means that the sea receded, but does not infer that the shoreline animals evolved from the sea creatures as evolution assumes. Then the continental landmass was formed through continuous lowering of sea levels due to growing ice caps and glaciation and terrestrial animals could migrate from the garden of Eden (island of Siberia) into a growing continent. The world favored amphibians because of the repeated transgression/regression cycle, and the climate over most of the continental landmass. 

 

Mammals/birds and grasses and humans were largely restricted to eco-systems more suitable in the far northern highlands of the island of Siberia, northern Gondwana. Here they were not threatened by the larger insects/amphibians of the southern wetlands, mammals/birds/grasses were suited to the lower oxygen, colder, lower air pressure northern highlands of Siberia. (alpine biome - see links below)

 

The Siberian Traps exploded, the greatest volcanic activity the world has known. This occurred during a magnetic reversal which seeded the thick misty air causing widespread rainfalls. The volcanic activity also contributed towards these rainfalls by seeding the air with dust and rapidly rising hot air contributing towards rainfalls and the land experienced flooding in the wide Permian flood plains. At the same time the Permian ice caps and glaciation melted, raising sea levels throughout earth. Due to the flat Permian landscapes, land surfaces were rapidly and completely covered by the worldwide flood. After the flood, the ark landed in Arabia, before that subcontinent collided with Asia. Animals and humans spread along Arabia, the Levant and into Africa. This is why the highest concentrations of early mammal species are found in Egypt/Ethiopia. In the meantime, marine reptiles similar to shell-less turtles discovered entire continents of recovering vegetation and no competition. They adapted rapidly to terrestrial lifestyles before the ark animals could spread out from Arabia/Egypt. These previously amphibuous/marine  reptiles flourished in the hot dry sandy (Triassic) post-flood world. The greenhouse effect of the Siberian Traps created a new high air-pressure world, which enabled these marine reptiles to grow into immense sizes as they adapted to terrestrial conditions.  The spreading mammals from the ark were no match for these dinosaurs, only the smallest mammals could live among the dinosaurs.   The mammals spread to northern climes better suited to them, and too cold for reptile dominance. 

 

Then a huge meteor collided with earth, large reptiles could not handle the cooler temperatures. The restricted light from the dust prevented bone growth and they died off en masse, with only a few surviving that cold and rapid ice age. This ended what is known as the Holocene Climate optimum. The Old Kingdom of Egypt abruptly terminated. Mammals then  spread throughout the earth with the more suitable climate and without the threat of dinosaurs. 

 

This dear friends is the simplified version of the fossil record which co-incides with human civilization. Scientists agree that there could be an "alpine biome" from before the PT boundary (the Great Extinction) that contains traces of modern flora.  I surmise there will be more than just modern flora discovered there:

 

http://www.gigantopteroid.org/html/systematics.htm
There is growing consensus among some molecular systematists and paleobotanists on the existence of a 160 million year old angiosperm ghost lineage rooted at the angiosperm-gymnosperm split roughly 300 MYA, prior to the end-Permian extinction

 

http://www.gigantopteroid.org/html/systematics.htm
Stebbins (1974, 1984) thought that alpine biomes of northern latitudes might have been the center of early radiation of angiosperms. A similar idea, the eastern Asian centers hypothesis, was put forth by G. Sun et al. (2001). Based on the recovery and study of fossil pollen casings (palynomorphs) recovered from deep-sea drill holes, Hochuli and Feist-Burkhardt (2004) suggested that early flowering plants might have evolved in a boreal cradle.

 


  • 1

#2
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Israel Advocacy Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

Other than "indian legend"   where are you getting your information for the notion that life began in Siberia?


  • 2

#3
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Africa
  • Interests:Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket

Other than "indian legend"   where are you getting your information for the notion that life began in Siberia?

 

Carboniferous fossils have been discovered all around the world, but nothing like today's fuana/flora.  Recently they have been discovering some modern plants (angiosperms) in the carboniferous layers of the Siberian regions. This proves that there was an area in the world with a climate similar to ours, and would logically contain the types of animals we have today (under creationist assumptions that they were there). In addition there was massive volcanic activity over a massive region which covered the entire region with a layer of hard rock. Which explains why those fossils are not easily found, but other types of extinct fossils are found everywhere else in the world.

 

http://www.gigantopteroid.org/html/systematics.htm
There is growing consensus among some molecular systematists and paleobotanists on the existence of a 160 million year old angiosperm ghost lineage rooted at the angiosperm-gymnosperm split roughly 300 MYA, prior to the end-Permian extinction

 

http://www.gigantopteroid.org/html/systematics.htm
Stebbins (1974, 1984) thought that alpine biomes of northern latitudes might have been the center of early radiation of angiosperms. A similar idea, the eastern Asian centers hypothesis, was put forth by G. Sun et al. (2001). Based on the recovery and study of fossil pollen casings (palynomorphs) recovered from deep-sea drill holes, Hochuli and Feist-Burkhardt (2004) suggested that early flowering plants might have evolved in a boreal cradle.

 

I find the theory of a missing "boreal cradle"  or "alpine biome" more believable to explain creationist missing fossils, than the evolutionist excuses for their lack of transitional fossils among literally millions of species.


  • 1

#4
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Africa
  • Interests:Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket

Summary of this thread:

 

A lost ecosystem in the northern areas of Gondwana during the Paleozioc is a better explanation for the sudden appearance of mammals/humans/birds and angiosperms than evolution. Regarding angiosperms, this is already a common view among scientists.

 

The lack of abundant fossils of these types in the Palaezioc is more palatable than the lack of transitional fossils for millions of species as per the theory of evolution. So the fossil record favors creationism over evolution.


  • 1

#5
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Africa
  • Interests:Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket
I've just noticed the "dinosaurs and dino poop" thread. I agree with spock, the one year flood cannot explain most of the fossil record. This is the reason I created this thread, to show that there are alternative creationist models that explain the fossil layering better than "the flood did it all" model.

If you place the flood at the PT boundary, incorporating some late Permian and early Triassic layers as flood layers, the entire fossil record fits well into the limited information we have from the bible. (assuming compressed timeframes of course - for this refer to my "Radiometric Dating" thread)


Precambrian bacteria = those billions of creation week bacteria that died off in the multiple generations of bacteria that existed before the first animal died.
Cambrian explosion = the first dead animals after creation week
The transition from marine to coastal to land fossils doesn't mean that fish evolved into mudfish and then evolved into land animals
The transition from marine to coastal to land fossils means that the landmass grew, marine fossils were covered by coastal fossils and then land fossils.

Many of the more dry land animals will most likely be found in the more stable cool highlands of Siberia, these regions have not been properly examined for Cambrian/carboniferous/Permian fossils. they need to be, but the region is remote, and the fossils are covered by a few miles of Siberian basalt formed when lava fountains of the great deep burst forth in the most dramatic volcanic activity the earth has known.

After this lava activity, the ice caps/glaciation melted, the earth was flooded, and all terrestrial life disappeared. Turtles and sea crocodiles survived the flood, crawled onto the land, and dominated earth until the meteor wiped them out. Then the ark animals could safely spread throughout earth.

That my friends, is the fossil record explained in biblical timeframes. No dino poop problems.
  • 1

#6
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Israel Advocacy Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

I've just noticed the "dinosaurs and dino poop" thread. I agree with spock, the one year flood cannot explain most of the fossil record. This is the reason I created this thread, to show that there are alternative creationist models that explain the fossil layering better than "the flood did it all" model.

If you place the flood at the PT boundary, incorporating some late Permian and early Triassic layers as flood layers, the entire fossil record fits well into the limited information we have from the bible. (assuming compressed timeframes of course - for this refer to my "Radiometric Dating" thread)


Precambrian bacteria = those billions of creation week bacteria that died off in the multiple generations of bacteria that existed before the first animal died.
Cambrian explosion = the first dead animals after creation week
The transition from marine to coastal to land fossils doesn't mean that fish evolved into mudfish and then evolved into land animals
The transition from marine to coastal to land fossils means that the landmass grew, marine fossils were covered by coastal fossils and then land fossils.

Many of the more dry land animals will most likely be found in the more stable cool highlands of Siberia, these regions have not been properly examined for Cambrian/carboniferous/Permian fossils. they need to be, but the region is remote, and the fossils are covered by a few miles of Siberian basalt formed when lava fountains of the great deep burst forth in the most dramatic volcanic activity the earth has known.

After this lava activity, the ice caps/glaciation melted, the earth was flooded, and all terrestrial life disappeared. Turtles and sea crocodiles survived the flood, crawled onto the land, and dominated earth until the meteor wiped them out. Then the ark animals could safely spread throughout earth.

That my friends, is the fossil record explained in biblical timeframes. No dino poop problems.

You weave a fancy tale.


  • 0

#7
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Africa
  • Interests:Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket

I've just noticed the "dinosaurs and dino poop" thread. I agree with spock, the one year flood cannot explain most of the fossil record. This is the reason I created this thread, to show that there are alternative creationist models that explain the fossil layering better than "the flood did it all" model.

If you place the flood at the PT boundary, incorporating some late Permian and early Triassic layers as flood layers, the entire fossil record fits well into the limited information we have from the bible. (assuming compressed timeframes of course - for this refer to my "Radiometric Dating" thread)


Precambrian bacteria = those billions of creation week bacteria that died off in the multiple generations of bacteria that existed before the first animal died.
Cambrian explosion = the first dead animals after creation week
The transition from marine to coastal to land fossils doesn't mean that fish evolved into mudfish and then evolved into land animals
The transition from marine to coastal to land fossils means that the landmass grew, marine fossils were covered by coastal fossils and then land fossils.

Many of the more dry land animals will most likely be found in the more stable cool highlands of Siberia, these regions have not been properly examined for Cambrian/carboniferous/Permian fossils. they need to be, but the region is remote, and the fossils are covered by a few miles of Siberian basalt formed when lava fountains of the great deep burst forth in the most dramatic volcanic activity the earth has known.

After this lava activity, the ice caps/glaciation melted, the earth was flooded, and all terrestrial life disappeared. Turtles and sea crocodiles survived the flood, crawled onto the land, and dominated earth until the meteor wiped them out. Then the ark animals could safely spread throughout earth.

That my friends, is the fossil record explained in biblical timeframes. No dino poop problems.

You weave a fancy tale.


Its more consistent with the fossil record than various categories of animals dying at different depths as per the mainstream christian flood model. Geologists themselves confirm widespread flooding at the PT boundary. What I am suggesting takes into account the following:

1)1700 years of sedimentation prior to the flood.
2) that the flood was only for 1 year
3) Matches the great death event of history with that of the bible

If my proposal fits in better with the bible, and fits in better with the fossil record/geology, on what basis is it more of a fanciful tale than the current flood model? I need bible verses or geological facts to back up your statement.
  • 1

#8
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Israel Advocacy Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

Uh, you are the one needing to provide some more evidence.  Your post was littered witih assumptions, not the least of which is sea crocodiles and turtles getting wiped out by a meteor.  Honestly, the one needing to provide evidence is you.    It appears your view is a mixture of unproven scientific claims and your own speculations. 


  • 2

#9
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Africa
  • Interests:Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket

Uh, you are the one needing to provide some more evidence.  Your post was littered witih assumptions, not the least of which is sea crocodiles and turtles getting wiped out by a meteor.  Honestly, the one needing to provide evidence is you.    It appears your view is a mixture of unproven scientific claims and your own speculations.


If you study the fossil anatomy of the earliest Triassic reptiles you will see that they are the same reptiles that had a previously marine habitat. This is fact. If you would like to contradict this, kindly look up early Triassic reptiles. After what is known as the Permian extinction (the great death) the world was a dry and silted up environment, this is historical fact. Reptiles flourished then. It is also fact that the demise of the dinosaurs is clearly associated with the iridium layer of a meteor impact. this is scientific fact.

Rather than just write off what could be scientific truth, and what could point towards the bible and not away from it, kindly be more investigative in your approach. Its possible that you are able to learn more about creationism, is it not?
  • 1

#10
chrisstavrous

chrisstavrous
  • Members *
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:Coming Soon...

Well I think its just neat, creation theory needs more than just (god did it and thats it) but you need to keep working on it.


Edited by chrisstavrous, 17 February 2014 - 08:27 AM.

  • 1

#11
MorningGlory

MorningGlory

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,407 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Houston, Texas

I think you present a plausible explanation for the fossil record, Argosy, certainly as plausible (or more so) than the-flood-did-everything theory.  But.....we have to remember that this is only your opinion and should not be construed as certainty.  It's okay to present your ideas, just don't be surprised when not everyone agrees with those ideas.


  • 1

#12
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:The Word of GOD!
    Microbiology/Biochemistry
    /Physics/Genetics
    Young Earth Creationist

 

 

I've just noticed the "dinosaurs and dino poop" thread. I agree with spock, the one year flood cannot explain most of the fossil record. This is the reason I created this thread, to show that there are alternative creationist models that explain the fossil layering better than "the flood did it all" model.

If you place the flood at the PT boundary, incorporating some late Permian and early Triassic layers as flood layers, the entire fossil record fits well into the limited information we have from the bible. (assuming compressed timeframes of course - for this refer to my "Radiometric Dating" thread)


Precambrian bacteria = those billions of creation week bacteria that died off in the multiple generations of bacteria that existed before the first animal died.
Cambrian explosion = the first dead animals after creation week
The transition from marine to coastal to land fossils doesn't mean that fish evolved into mudfish and then evolved into land animals
The transition from marine to coastal to land fossils means that the landmass grew, marine fossils were covered by coastal fossils and then land fossils.

Many of the more dry land animals will most likely be found in the more stable cool highlands of Siberia, these regions have not been properly examined for Cambrian/carboniferous/Permian fossils. they need to be, but the region is remote, and the fossils are covered by a few miles of Siberian basalt formed when lava fountains of the great deep burst forth in the most dramatic volcanic activity the earth has known.

After this lava activity, the ice caps/glaciation melted, the earth was flooded, and all terrestrial life disappeared. Turtles and sea crocodiles survived the flood, crawled onto the land, and dominated earth until the meteor wiped them out. Then the ark animals could safely spread throughout earth.

That my friends, is the fossil record explained in biblical timeframes. No dino poop problems.

You weave a fancy tale.

 


Its more consistent with the fossil record than various categories of animals dying at different depths as per the mainstream christian flood model. Geologists themselves confirm widespread flooding at the PT boundary. What I am suggesting takes into account the following:

1)1700 years of sedimentation prior to the flood.
2) that the flood was only for 1 year
3) Matches the great death event of history with that of the bible

If my proposal fits in better with the bible, and fits in better with the fossil record/geology, on what basis is it more of a fanciful tale than the current flood model? I need bible verses or geological facts to back up your statement.

 

 

 

Hey Argosy,

 

Your whole premise and postulates are built on the ASSUMPTION of the validity of the "Secular" Geologic Column.

 

I have recently run into a BOMBSHELL that Jack-Hammers that "Secular" Geologic Column; check this when you get a chance and let me know what you think.....

 

Guy Berthault:  http://www.sedimentology.fr/


  • 1

#13
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,152 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Standing before two roads in a yellow woods

 

 

 

I've just noticed the "dinosaurs and dino poop" thread. I agree with spock, the one year flood cannot explain most of the fossil record. This is the reason I created this thread, to show that there are alternative creationist models that explain the fossil layering better than "the flood did it all" model.

If you place the flood at the PT boundary, incorporating some late Permian and early Triassic layers as flood layers, the entire fossil record fits well into the limited information we have from the bible. (assuming compressed timeframes of course - for this refer to my "Radiometric Dating" thread)


Precambrian bacteria = those billions of creation week bacteria that died off in the multiple generations of bacteria that existed before the first animal died.
Cambrian explosion = the first dead animals after creation week
The transition from marine to coastal to land fossils doesn't mean that fish evolved into mudfish and then evolved into land animals
The transition from marine to coastal to land fossils means that the landmass grew, marine fossils were covered by coastal fossils and then land fossils.

Many of the more dry land animals will most likely be found in the more stable cool highlands of Siberia, these regions have not been properly examined for Cambrian/carboniferous/Permian fossils. they need to be, but the region is remote, and the fossils are covered by a few miles of Siberian basalt formed when lava fountains of the great deep burst forth in the most dramatic volcanic activity the earth has known.

After this lava activity, the ice caps/glaciation melted, the earth was flooded, and all terrestrial life disappeared. Turtles and sea crocodiles survived the flood, crawled onto the land, and dominated earth until the meteor wiped them out. Then the ark animals could safely spread throughout earth.

That my friends, is the fossil record explained in biblical timeframes. No dino poop problems.

You weave a fancy tale.

 


Its more consistent with the fossil record than various categories of animals dying at different depths as per the mainstream christian flood model. Geologists themselves confirm widespread flooding at the PT boundary. What I am suggesting takes into account the following:

1)1700 years of sedimentation prior to the flood.
2) that the flood was only for 1 year
3) Matches the great death event of history with that of the bible

If my proposal fits in better with the bible, and fits in better with the fossil record/geology, on what basis is it more of a fanciful tale than the current flood model? I need bible verses or geological facts to back up your statement.

 

 

 

Hey Argosy,

 

Your whole premise and postulates are built on the ASSUMPTION of the validity of the "Secular" Geologic Column.

 

I have recently run into a BOMBSHELL that Jack-Hammers that "Secular" Geologic Column; check this when you get a chance and let me know what you think.....

 

Guy Berthault:  http://www.sedimentology.fr/

 

 

There have been no premises put forth on this board that do not rely on the validity of a certain interpretation of the evidence that is nature. 

 

Interesting article, I would like to see the follow up to it and what comes of it in the community.  On the surface I see one issue with it for the YEC crowd.  He states that the "the time of sedimentation of the St. Petersburg sequence represents only 0.05% of the time refereed to by the geologic time scale."

If you take the time refereed to by the geological time scale and multiple it times .05% you still come up with a number 65.6 times bigger than the 4000 years since the flood.  


  • 2

#14
Sheniy

Sheniy

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Theology, Sci-Fi (I'm a nerd), anything artsy or creative, Japan, Astronomy, books (reading and/or collecting), worship music, and I have a slight addiction to computer games...

There have been no premises put forth on this board that do not rely on the validity of a certain interpretation of the evidence that is nature.


This is an excellent point that seem to get forgotten here.


  • 1

#15
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Israel Advocacy Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

 

Uh, you are the one needing to provide some more evidence.  Your post was littered witih assumptions, not the least of which is sea crocodiles and turtles getting wiped out by a meteor.  Honestly, the one needing to provide evidence is you.    It appears your view is a mixture of unproven scientific claims and your own speculations.


If you study the fossil anatomy of the earliest Triassic reptiles you will see that they are the same reptiles that had a previously marine habitat. This is fact. If you would like to contradict this, kindly look up early Triassic reptiles. After what is known as the Permian extinction (the great death) the world was a dry and silted up environment, this is historical fact. Reptiles flourished then. It is also fact that the demise of the dinosaurs is clearly associated with the iridium layer of a meteor impact. this is scientific fact.

Rather than just write off what could be scientific truth, and what could point towards the bible and not away from it, kindly be more investigative in your approach. Its possible that you are able to learn more about creationism, is it not?

 

What is confusing is the way you mix secular scientific terminology meant to communicate long epochs of time and apply it to a recent creative event.  

 

The Meteor or asteroid that allegedly wiped out the dinosaurs is said to have happened 65 million years ago, you are claiming happened within a short time of the flood.   It honestly makes no sense and frankly, it just looks like you are just running with whatever pops into your head.   There is simply no reason to think that some meteor slammed into the earth and wiped out all of the animals.

 

I really have a hard time making sense of your position. 


  • 1

#16
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:The Word of GOD!
    Microbiology/Biochemistry
    /Physics/Genetics
    Young Earth Creationist
There have been no premises put forth on this board that do not rely on the validity of a certain interpretation of the evidence that is nature.

 

That's Incorrect, IMHO.  3 off the top of my head are Dino Soft Tissue/ Fossil Soft Tissue/ Dino's and Humans...I'm sure there are many more based on Scripture.  Maybe we should Caveat it with "Reasonable/Rational/Sound" Interpretations.  Because you can say with any subject for the most part....."well, I have a different Interpretation".  Interpretations are for the most part subjective and are like Armpits.....they're smelly and everyone has one.  :happyhappy:

 

 

Interesting article, I would like to see the follow up to it and what comes of it in the community.  On the surface I see one issue with it for the YEC crowd.  He states that the "the time of sedimentation of the St. Petersburg sequence represents only 0.05% of the time refereed to by the geologic time scale."

If you take the time refereed to by the geological time scale and multiple it times .05% you still come up with a number 65.6 times bigger than the 4000 years since the flood.

 

Not so.  The most interesting item is that the current "ESTIMATE" of the St. Petersburg Sequence is .05% of the time as refereed against the GEOLOGIC TIMESCALE.  In other words, it's 99.95% WRONG!!!!!.....as measured against, what? You have more work to do to finish the Thesis.......

 

Most Importantly....

 

Then that leads to or "Begs The Question" regarding the Validity and Veracity of what that 99.95% (or .05%) is being measured against........ the "Current" Geologic Timescale!

 

What if the Current Geologic Timescale is wrong? :o   What is the Geologic Timescale BASED ON..................

 

 

The 4.5 b.y. era started about 1955 with the publication of a classic paper by Patterson et al.
Patterson, C., Tilton, G. and Inghram, M., Science 121:69, 1955.

The 4.5 Billion Year Estimate relies heavily on the uranium/thorium/lead radiometric dating methods.  They estimated the age of the Earth by substituting the lead isotope ratios of certain meteorites in the Holmes-Houtermans equation.  These values they assumed were based on the lead isotope ratios observed for three meteorites.  Big sample size, eh? Moreover, later... it is even more surprising to learn that the lead isotope ratios chosen by Patterson et al were found not to be representative of the majority of meteorites.-----Faul, H., Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars, McGraw-Hill Book Co., p. 75, 1966

THEN, in 1972, Gale et al dropped a LEAD "Isotope" ANVIL on all of the 13th Century Alchemy......

“ … it is not widely appreciated, outside the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or meteoritics that, judged by modern standards, the meteoritic lead-lead isochron is very poorly established.

“This (work) shows unequivocally for the first time that there is indeed a real problem in the uranium/lead evolution in meteorites, in that in each of these meteorites there is now insufficient uranium to support the lead isotope composition.

“It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy.”

Gale. N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R., Nature Phys. Science 240:57, 1972

 

Appears nobody got this memo.  :rolleyes:

 

 

How does that song go......"Turn out the Lights, the Party is ............OVER!!"


  • 1

#17
anthonyjmcgirr

anthonyjmcgirr

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan
  • Interests:writing, reading, watching movies, spending time with loved ones, creating.

I want someone to please explain to me the geologic timescale.  Because from my understanding, one doesn't exist except for the ones scientists use that is completely inaccurate and false.  There is absolutely no way to dig a hole in the ground, no matter how deep, and determine which rocks/dirt/etc are from which era.  They say, "Oh, I found a T-Rex bone.  So this rock must be from the ______ era and is _______ millions of years old."  Well, how old is the dinosaur bone?  "Well, it was found the _______ rock layer, and this rock layer was laid down ______ years ago, so the bone is ______ millions of years old."

 

It's called circular reasoning and is COMPLETELY based upon assumptions.  They have absolutely no way to determine what rock came from what era except to say, "We find these fossils in this layer, so this layer must be this age."  It's fairly dumb if you ask me.


  • 1

#18
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,152 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Standing before two roads in a yellow woods
 

 

 

That's Incorrect, IMHO.  3 off the top of my head are Dino Soft Tissue/ Fossil Soft Tissue/ Dino's and Humans...I'm sure there are many more based on Scripture.  Maybe we should Caveat it with "Reasonable/Rational/Sound" Interpretations.  Because you can say with any subject for the most part....."well, I have a different Interpretation".  Interpretations are for the most part subjective and are like Armpits.....they're smelly and everyone has one.

 

 

The problem with your caveat is that everyone thinks their interpretations are Reasonable/Rational/Sound and people think any interpretation they do not agree with is Unreasonable/Irrational/and Not Sound.  

 

Not so.  The most interesting item is that the current "ESTIMATE" of the St. Petersburg Sequence is .05% of the time as refereed against the GEOLOGIC TIMESCALE.  In other words, it's 99.95% WRONG!!!!!.....as measured against, what? You have more work to do to finish the Thesis......

 

 

According to one man.  I think it is a bit premature to say this one gentlemen is correct. In any case, if you are saying this man is right you still have a major problem as even he dates things 65 times older than what your view allows.  So, if you say this gentlemen is correct you will need to adjust your view on the age of the earth.


  • 1

#19
anthonyjmcgirr

anthonyjmcgirr

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan
  • Interests:writing, reading, watching movies, spending time with loved ones, creating.

And I went back and read the article on dinosaur poop and it made no sense to me.  It claims all dino fossils are found in the Mesozoic rocks?  Well, how do you know which rocks are Mesozoic?  Because they have dino fossils in them?  It's not like there's an exact measurement: five meters into the ground is when the Mesozoic era rock begins  And the fact that ALL dino fossils are found in what they claim to be one layer should prove that they all died in one catastrophic event.  Most scientists don't doubt this, as they say it was a comet or asteroid, I say it was a flood.  The difference is in order to have billions of fossils, a flood makes more sense than an asteroid/comet because you need water and sediment to bury the bodies immediately to preserve and encase them.  In a lot of cases, there are still feathers/bone marrow/scales and other things within the fossils themselves.  So: flood makes more logical sense to me.

 

And as for the dino poop itself...dinos pooped before the flood.  I'm sure they pooped when they saw the big wall of water heading their way, and they pooped after the flood. I'm certain there were dinosaurs on the ark because every kind was represented.  And the evidence of Job seeing several dinosaurs as well as many other people throughout history. I believe the dinosaurs died off because they were hunted for their meat (as even described in many historical texts deemed by science as myth), the earth became cooler and they didn't live as long to grow to monstrous sizes.  So the poo doesn't sway me towards OEC in anyway.


  • 1

#20
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:The Word of GOD!
    Microbiology/Biochemistry
    /Physics/Genetics
    Young Earth Creationist

I want someone to please explain to me the geologic timescale.  Because from my understanding, one doesn't exist except for the ones scientists use that is completely inaccurate and false.  There is absolutely no way to dig a hole in the ground, no matter how deep, and determine which rocks/dirt/etc are from which era.  They say, "Oh, I found a T-Rex bone.  So this rock must be from the ______ era and is _______ millions of years old."  Well, how old is the dinosaur bone?  "Well, it was found the _______ rock layer, and this rock layer was laid down ______ years ago, so the bone is ______ millions of years old."

 

It's called circular reasoning and is COMPLETELY based upon assumptions.  They have absolutely no way to determine what rock came from what era except to say, "We find these fossils in this layer, so this layer must be this age."  It's fairly dumb if you ask me.

 

You've pretty much summed it up  :)

 

 

"It's the Rocks Date the Fossils and the Fossils Date The Rocks Two-Step"

 

I put it in a song...I think on the Dino Soft tissue thread  :)


  • 1




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network