The Fossil Record

[ARGOSY]

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/

Hi Enoch, yes that was a very interesting article. He attributes geological layering to a succession of sedimentation after flooding caused by mountain building events(orogenesis). This fits in with the rapid "catastrophic" biblical model which I do agree with, but my model incorporates the transgressive/regressive cycle that also occurred before the flood, during the flood and after the flood.

Despite creationist attempts to refute the geological column I have looked into studies of localized geologic columns and they all show the same pattern. So I do not doubt the geological column at all, it makes perfect sense to me from a biblical point of view.

The oceans were very likely largely sulfuric/anoxic during creation week. the bible only hints at the tectonic/volcanic activity by saying that the earth was in chaos and land suddenly arose out of the water. That speaks to me of possible widespread volcanic activity, and so I'm not surprised that god seeded the oceans with trilobites that have been identified in sulfuric environments.

Then we have a period during which mankind lived long lifespans, and the carboniferous is known for its huge insects and high oxygen content of the atmosphere. The bible hints at strong mists because of the reference to a lack of rain in Genesis, fitting in with the types of moisture absorbing bark and smaller root systems of the pre-boundary flora.

Then we have the flood, obviously the world would silt over and lose its forests and jungles, preventing oxygen production. We would have a steadily decreasing oxygen supply until a new equilibrium is reached, and the world would be initially deserts, and completely abandoned by terrestrial fauna unless some marine reptiles (turtles and crocodiles) could adapt to the land. Only plant seeds that can survive flooding would flourish for a whil. This is exactly what we see in the early Triassic until the ark fauna/flora/angiosperms manage to spread out.

So what I am saying is that according to the bible stories, we would EXPECT a series of layers, pre-flood, flood, early post-flood and later post-flood, and that is what we find.

[ARGOSY]

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.

I quite simply compress their timeframes. Paleozoic equals pre-flood. PT boundary equals flood. Mesozoic equals post flood. (Flood was caused by the Siberian traps). Cenozoic equals post-impact.

I have a lot of respect for mainstream geological analysis. I trust their ability to recognize the difference between flood sedimentation, fluvial sedimentation, wind erosion, various speeds of deposition. I believe according to mainstream geology, the evidence for widespread flooding at the PT boundary is overwhelming. For example in China, in USA in Australia, in South America, there is evidence for a major transgression (sea flooding) during the PT boundary. In EVERY continent the massive low-lying flood-plains which dominated the Permian landscapes experienced a dramatic change from an underfill to an overfill, and sedimentation rates greatly increased in the floodplains after the PT boundary (rainfalls and no vegetation meant that erosion was dramatic in the early Triassic)

I see the bible everywhere in the earth's geology and believe most mainstream geologists will think twice when they go back and look for a flood at the PT boundary.

[ARGOSY]

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.

Although radiometric dating is often incorrect, there is also sometimes a consilience beyond statistical chance. Due to the regular consilience above statistical chance, I believe that decay rates have fluctuated widely in history but in unison, and so dates are always inaccurate but are most often a good reflection of relative dates. In support of this, you will find that rocks independently sent to dating labs for the transition layers between the swampy amphibian layers and the dry reptilian layers will reflect dates of 250 to 252 million years old. That is beyond any co-incidence.

I completely disagree with mainstream dates, but agree with the use of radiometric dating as a loose reflection of relative dates, and in addition the world does show a transition from trilobites to fish to "mudfish" to "swampy animals" to reptiles to mammals. This layering is entirely consistent with the changing world environments from a wet cool world to a dry hot world growing cooler , to a sudden ice age and then a recovery from that ice age. All over the world, the succession between the layers is consistent with these changing environments over time.

[ARGOSY]

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.

Like I said in my previous post, the layers are a lot clearer than you think. During the massive volcanic activity of the Siberian traps, the whole world shows a dust layer that contains volcanic elements. Most of the world also shows a mud layer, and also a fungal layer (marine and terrestrial).

Below this fungal/mud/volcanic layer most land-based plants and animals are from swamp environments (like large amphibians). Above this fungal/mud/volcanic layer most land-based animals are from dry desert environments (like large reptiles). Then all around the world, these reptiles start getting larger and more varied. You always find this layer above the smaller less varied layer. Then suddenyl the numbers of large reptilian fossils drop rapidly at the same place where you find an iridium layer all around the world. After the iridium layer you find signs of a sudden and dramatic ice age all around the world. After this you find old the mega-fauna fossils (large mammals) all around the world. Followed by today's animals.

That is undeniable fact, to deny the layering is to deny truth. Evolutionists also deny truth, because when the world goes through dramatic transitions there are always some isolated ecosystems where fauna/flora survive the changes, and these readily adapt and have population explosions when conditions are suitable. That is a more observable evidence-based explanation for the fossil record than the unproven process of the evolving of new functional coding genes.

[ARGOSY]

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.

There's nothing wrong with science. The bible is definite truth, science is an attempt at truth. Sometimes they get it right. they not as illogical as you think.

I re-interpret scientific evidence in the light of the bible and find its a coherent whole. Anyway here I find myself arguing with both sides as usual. Just looking for the actual truth that's all. I believe I have found it....oh well I guess that's between me and God, God is not as concerned with proving Himself as man is, and one day all will stand before Him and know the truth. In the meantime I just enjoy finding out stuff about creation. If no-one wants to listen.... that's ok

[ARGOSY]

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.

So true. I am swayed by a good set of evidence, but of course we are all subconsciously biased.

[LookingForAnswers]

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?

 

There is nothing that I believe in the realm of science that contradicts the bible, just your flawed interpretation of it.   The answer to your question simple, I do believe His writing and His words.  It is not a matter of doubting the bible, it is a matter of doubting your view of it, and regardless of how much you may think so, that is not one in the same.   This is a tiresome tactic that is used by a great many people that share your view in an attempt to silence those who refuse to think like you, and I do so wish you would find a more honest approach.

[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?

 

There is nothing that I believe in the realm of science that contradicts the bible, just your flawed interpretation of it.   The answer to your question simple, I do believe His writing and His words.  It is not a matter of doubting the bible, it is a matter of doubting your view of it, and regardless of how much you may think so, that is not one in the same.   This is a tiresome tactic that is used by a great many people that share your view in an attempt to silence those who refuse to think like you, and I do so wish you would find a more honest approach.

 

 

Fair enough. I apologize for my pointed approach.  Just as you tire of YEC and their way of thinking, I am just as tired of OEC and atheists calling us idiots just for challenging the interpretations of science.  They are entirely naturalistic and take the hand of God out of any bias, assumption, test and study.  And I know a lot of people who are Christians and say God has no role in science and they should remain separate.  But if God exists, that changes everything and you can no longer interpret the evidence from a naturalistic perspective.  Things that *appear* to have taken millions of years to form could've only happened in the blink of an eye by God. 

 

I often use the analogy of a modern-day scientist going into the Garden of Eden and using his naturalistic bias to determine the age of the earth. He would still look up in the sky and see the stars in the sky and assume billions of years because of the current rate of the speed of light.  But that is not a question that has to be answered naturally as we know the universe and its creation were not natural.  They were supernatural. 

 

If you accept my apology and are willing to do so, I am able to humble myself and openly listen to what you have to say on your own interpretations.  I ask you to please PM me and explain how you can mix what science says with the word of God and still be satisfied. 

 

I used to be an atheist and an evolutionist until I heard God speak to me one day and it changed my life forever.  I sought out my salvation with fear and trembling as the bible says to do and had a hard time adjusting to a new way of thinking and after several years of searching, realized the creation model just makes more sense and is entirely plausible considering the universe was created by an all-powerful supernatural Being.  But I promise I will listen to what you have to say and perhaps we can have a little dialogue and even ask each other questions.  Are you willing?

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

Fair enough. I apologize for my pointed approach.  Just as you tire of YEC and their way of thinking, I am just as tired of OEC and atheists calling us idiots just for challenging the interpretations of science.  They are entirely naturalistic and take the hand of God out of any bias, assumption, test and study.  And I know a lot of people who are Christians and say God has no role in science and they should remain separate.  But if God exists, that changes everything and you can no longer interpret the evidence from a naturalistic perspective.  Things that *appear* to have taken millions of years to form could've only happened in the blink of an eye by God. 

 

I often use the analogy of a modern-day scientist going into the Garden of Eden and using his naturalistic bias to determine the age of the earth. He would still look up in the sky and see the stars in the sky and assume billions of years because of the current rate of the speed of light.  But that is not a question that has to be answered naturally as we know the universe and its creation were not natural.  They were supernatural. 

 

If you accept my apology and are willing to do so, I am able to humble myself and openly listen to what you have to say on your own interpretations.  I ask you to please PM me and explain how you can mix what science says with the word of God and still be satisfied. 

 

I used to be an atheist and an evolutionist until I heard God speak to me one day and it changed my life forever.  I sought out my salvation with fear and trembling as the bible says to do and had a hard time adjusting to a new way of thinking and after several years of searching, realized the creation model just makes more sense and is entirely plausible considering the universe was created by an all-powerful supernatural Being.  But I promise I will listen to what you have to say and perhaps we can have a little dialogue and even ask each other questions.  Are you willing?

 

 

It is all good my friend, neither side should seek to disparage the other.  We are all here as a group looking to discuss things we believe, and we all know that there will be disagreements, that is why we all come.  If all anyone did was agree with each other none of us would be back after a couple of days.

 

I will work on a PM in the next day or so that lays out what I believe so you can see where I am coming from.