The Fossil Record

[Enoch2021]

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.

 

You've pretty much summed it up again.  Kudos!!

[anthonyjmcgirr]

Thanks!  It's just quite amazing to me how every scientific discovery can be used to verify the bible's order of events, yet because of science's naturalistic bias, they must try to explain everything without a God.  Well, if God exists (and I believe He does), it changes everything.  Why Christians feel they must accept atheistic evolutionary science and mingle it with their faith, I will never understand.  Probably because science has done a great job at making creationism the big joke and you're ignorant if you believe it.  Well, it's not ignorance.  It's how you interpret the data and there is more than one way to do so!

[LookingForAnswers]

Thanks!  It's just quite amazing to me how every scientific discovery can be used to verify the bible's order of events, yet because of science's naturalistic bias, they must try to explain everything without a God.  Well, if God exists (and I believe He does), it changes everything.  Why Christians feel they must accept atheistic evolutionary science and mingle it with their faith, I will never understand.  Probably because science has done a great job at making creationism the big joke and you're ignorant if you believe it.  Well, it's not ignorance.  It's how you interpret the data and there is more than one way to do so!

 

yes, there is more than one way to interpret the data, why then do you disparage those Christians that do not interpret it the same way you do?

[Tristen]

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.

 

The problem with Spock's presentation is that it relies upon an article (http://www.oldearth.org/poop.htm) purporting to expose the “ insurmountable obstacles for the young-earth model”. The article then proceeds to build its argument on a non-creationist premise; i.e. that secular labels for rock layers can be directly associated with creationist flood models; e.g. “all the Mesozoic rocks … were late-flood rocks”. In my experience, creationists writing about creationist flood models are explicit about how invalid such comparisons are.

 

The creationist premise obviously doesn’t require the assumption that each sedimentary layer represents millions of years of homogeneous global deposition. So under the pressures of a single, globally-catastrophic flood, it is plausible that so-called “Mesozoic rocks” actually formed at different times in different geological locations. The irony of the article is that actual creationist flood models use signs of activity (e.g. poop, footprints, drowning, eating, copulation etc.) as markers indicating early-flood rocks.

 

The article is based on a false premise. Therefore the supposed “insurmountable obstacles for the young-earth model” are easily ‘surmounted’ when considering the actual creationist arguments.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Tristen

[anthonyjmcgirr]

 

Thanks!  It's just quite amazing to me how every scientific discovery can be used to verify the bible's order of events, yet because of science's naturalistic bias, they must try to explain everything without a God.  Well, if God exists (and I believe He does), it changes everything.  Why Christians feel they must accept atheistic evolutionary science and mingle it with their faith, I will never understand.  Probably because science has done a great job at making creationism the big joke and you're ignorant if you believe it.  Well, it's not ignorance.  It's how you interpret the data and there is more than one way to do so!

 

yes, there is more than one way to interpret the data, why then do you disparage those Christians that do not interpret it the same way you do?

 

 

 

Because when you interpret the data in a way that agrees with atheistic science, you call the bible a liar, you call God a liar and it shows a lack of faith in both. 

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

Thanks!  It's just quite amazing to me how every scientific discovery can be used to verify the bible's order of events, yet because of science's naturalistic bias, they must try to explain everything without a God.  Well, if God exists (and I believe He does), it changes everything.  Why Christians feel they must accept atheistic evolutionary science and mingle it with their faith, I will never understand.  Probably because science has done a great job at making creationism the big joke and you're ignorant if you believe it.  Well, it's not ignorance.  It's how you interpret the data and there is more than one way to do so!

 

yes, there is more than one way to interpret the data, why then do you disparage those Christians that do not interpret it the same way you do?

 

 

 

Because when you interpret the data in a way that agrees with atheistic science, you call the bible a liar, you call God a liar and it shows a lack of faith in both. 

 

 

Here we go again, yet one more Young Earth Creationist that seems to think disagreeing with him is the same as disagreeing with God.  Is there some class where they teach you all this tactic to try and silence those that think differently than you?  Let me ask you this?  Do you think the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun?  If you answer yes then you too have interpreted data in a way that agrees with atheistic science, if such a thing could even exist.  Do you think that an atom is made up of protons and electrons and neutrons?  If so then you too are agreeing with atheistic science.  Should I go on for you?  Or will you move past this failed tactic?

[LookingForAnswers]

 

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.

 

The problem with Spock's presentation is that it relies upon an article (http://www.oldearth.org/poop.htm) purporting to expose the “ insurmountable obstacles for the young-earth model”. The article then proceeds to build its argument on a non-creationist premise; i.e. that secular labels for rock layers can be directly associated with creationist flood models; e.g. “all the Mesozoic rocks … were late-flood rocks”. In my experience, creationists writing about creationist flood models are explicit about how invalid such comparisons are.

 

The creationist premise obviously doesn’t require the assumption that each sedimentary layer represents millions of years of homogeneous global deposition. So under the pressures of a single, globally-catastrophic flood, it is plausible that so-called “Mesozoic rocks” actually formed at different times in different geological locations. The irony of the article is that actual creationist flood models use signs of activity (e.g. poop, footprints, drowning, eating, copulation etc.) as markers indicating early-flood rocks.

 

The article is based on a false premise. Therefore the supposed “insurmountable obstacles for the young-earth model” are easily ‘surmounted’ when considering the actual creationist arguments.

 

 

This idea of a "insurmountable obstacle" is an error both sides of the discussion make with equal frequency.  The problem is of course there can never be such a thing, people will believe what they want regardless of what lies in their way.

[anthonyjmcgirr]

There is a difference between OBSERVABLE evidence that the bible speaks nothing about, than NON-OBSERVABLE evidence science says is true that contradicts the bible. 

 

God chose to reveal Himself to the world and gave us His word on how things went down.  He told us how He created us, the world and the universe.  You (nor science) has any evidence of the Big Bang.  You (nor science) has any evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor.  You (nor science) has any evidence that the earth is billions of years old.  You (nor science) has any evidence that the flood didn't happen. 

 

I am not speaking with arrogance that I know everything. I am speaking with faith in God that HE told us how HE did it.  He was the only one there.  And while science changes and changes and changes again, the Word of God has stood the test of time and taught us things we couldn't even begin to observe until modern times.

 

I don't care if you disagree with me. I'm a fallible person.  I'm not putting myself on the same level as God. I'm simply stating that if you accept a theory from atheistic science over what the bible says and what God said, then you have faith in neither and are calling both a liar. 

 

John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

 

So let me ask you the same thing Jesus asked.  If you do not believe his writings, how do you believe His words?

[Enoch2021]

There is a difference between OBSERVABLE evidence that the bible speaks nothing about, than NON-OBSERVABLE evidence science says is true that contradicts the bible. 

 

God chose to reveal Himself to the world and gave us His word on how things went down.  He told us how He created us, the world and the universe.  You (nor science) has any evidence of the Big Bang.  You (nor science) has any evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor.  You (nor science) has any evidence that the earth is billions of years old.  You (nor science) has any evidence that the flood didn't happen. 

 

I am not speaking with arrogance that I know everything. I am speaking with faith in God that HE told us how HE did it.  He was the only one there.  And while science changes and changes and changes again, the Word of God has stood the test of time and taught us things we couldn't even begin to observe until modern times.

 

I don't care if you disagree with me. I'm a fallible person.  I'm not putting myself on the same level as God. I'm simply stating that if you accept a theory from atheistic science over what the bible says and what God said, then you have faith in neither and are calling both a liar. 

 

John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

 

So let me ask you the same thing Jesus asked.  If you do not believe his writings, how do you believe His words?

 

I'm liking where your Mind's @ Anthony 

[ARGOSY]

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.

Thanks for that. Your response is actually better than anything I was expecting, all I was looking for was a decent discussion so people can start being aware of another view. Its far too early for anyone to embrace it, and I'm pleased you feel it has some plausibility.