The Fossil Record God Left For Us, Not to Darwinists

[SavedOnebyGrace]

26 minutes ago, Salty said:

There's clearly some evidences in the fossil record doubters here have not really considered...

"The Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event,^[a] also known as the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T) extinction, was a mass extinction of some three-quarters of the plant and animal species on Earth that occurred over a geologically short period of time^[2][3][4] approximately 66 million years ago.^[3] With the exception of some ectothermic species like the leatherback sea turtle and crocodiles, no tetrapods weighing more than 55 pounds (25 kilos) survived.^[5] It marked the end of the Cretaceous period and with it, the entire Mesozoic Era, opening the Cenozoic Era that continues today.

In the geologic record, the K–Pg event is marked by a thin layer of sediment called the K–Pg boundary, which can be found throughout the world in marine and terrestrial rocks. The boundary clay shows high levels of the metal iridium, which is rare in the Earth's crust but abundant in asteroids.^[6]

As originally proposed in 1980 by a team of scientists led by Luis Alvarez, it is now generally thought that the K–Pg extinction was triggered by a massive comet or asteroid impact 66 million years ago^[3] and its catastrophic effects on the global environment, including a lingering impact winter that made it impossible for plants and plankton to carry out photosynthesis.^[7][8] The impact hypothesis, also known as the Alvarez hypothesis, was bolstered by the discovery of the 180-kilometre-wide (112 mi) Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico in the early 1990s,^[9] which provided conclusive evidence that the K–Pg boundary clay represented debris from an asteroid impact.^[10] The fact that the extinctions occurred at the same time as the impact provides strong situational evidence that the K–Pg extinction was caused by the asteroid.^[10] It was possibly accelerated by the creation of the Deccan Traps. However, some scientists maintain the extinction was caused or exacerbated by other factors, such as volcanic eruptions,^[11] climate change, or sea level change, separately or together." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event

Climate change, volcanic eruptions, etc., would have been a natural reaction of an asteroid impact event.

[Salty]

I don't think it involved one asteroid. The woolly mammoths found buried in ice in the Arctic region, still with vegetation in its mouth and undigested in its stomach shows it was caught grazing in a green luscious field, and is pointing to an instant freeze and a then a flood of waters turning to ice.

The example at the end of Hebrews 12 of God having once 'shook the earth' (which I think was Paul speaking), shows there was a previous time of destruction upon this earth to the level which God's future destruction will be with His consuming fire. I do not see that level of destruction pointing to the flood of Noah which did not shake the earth to the level God is going to do it in our near future to destroy this present world.

There's an error between true geographic north and true magnetic north. Pilots have to correct their compass over long flights because of this. It's about a 90 mile error, but constantly is moving. I believe that happened from the originally shaking of the earth that God did because of Lucifer's rebellion.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Salty

[Guest Teditis]

An instant freeze? Cold enough and hard enough to kill a mammoth in the midst of eating?

I don't think so.

[Salty]

Just now, Teditis said:

An instant freeze? Cold enough and hard enough to kill a mammoth in the midst of eating?

I don't think so.

That's what the evidence suggests when woolly mammoth were uncovered under ice in the Arctic region. Froze it solid while grazing.

[Guest Teditis]

1 hour ago, Salty said:

That's what the evidence suggests when woolly mammoth were uncovered under ice in the Arctic region. Froze it solid while grazing.

To you perhaps, but it boggles my mind to believe that it would get so cold, so suddenly that it would freeze to death

a mammoth in mid-chew.

Sounds like a heart-attack would be more likely.

[hmbld]

1 hour ago, Teditis said:

To you perhaps, but it boggles my mind to believe that it would get so cold, so suddenly that it would freeze to death

a mammoth in mid-chew.

Sounds like a heart-attack would be more likely.

Ted, I have heard this mammoth being frozen so quickly it died with vegetation in its mouth way back in elementary school, lol.  It does seem odd, doesn't it?  Well, I have read some, where the original person who found it, believed this is what happened, which was quickly proven wrong, yet it has been repeated so many times, people think it is true.  I'm undecided, but supposedly this animal had one leg with multiple fractures, like it had fallen into a ravine, and died.  Now, I have not witnessed wooly mammoths of course, but I have witnessed my cows often will have a fairly large portion of hay protruding from their mouths, and they are indifferent about it.  I have also witnessed sick calves, they simply don't care if anything is placed in their mouths, so I am convinced that if an animal fell and was severely injured, it is possible they simply don't care if any vegetation is still in their mouth.  This seems more plausible to me than the story of they suddenly froze to death so fast they couldn't even swallow the food they had in their mouths.  One can find a animal completely frozen, and surmise many different stories about it, but it seems some stories seem so unreal that people love to retell them!  I didn't even think about a heart-attack, but your right, there are any number of things that people or animals suddenly die from, which are especially common after a fall or broken leg happens.  

Now people continue to say there is an "obvious gap" or "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth", but that really is not proving their point to say these things.  How could there be death prior to Genesis 1:2 when scripture tells us death came by way of Adam's sin?  And as Gdemoss stated, why would God spend time after Genesis 1:2 naming new things, if they were not new?  I see no proof of this gap theory, only re-presenting of information assembled years ago, with the same story line that is not substantiated, and quiet frankly, this story line is not supported by scripture, but rather goes against scripture, as God tells us when death came to be.  

[SavedOnebyGrace]

With respect to death and what God says about it, I submit the following: Death before Genesis 1:3 Consistent with a Literal Interpretation of Scripture

Quote

Animal Death

Mortenson claims the Bible teaches there was no animal death before man was created. He gives the impression this comes from order of events recorded in Genesis 1. It does not. It is based entirely on the young-earth view of the Fall (Adam and Eve's sin in Genesis 3). Young-earth creationists contend animal death was not part of the original creation but something God introduced as a consequence for Adam and Eve's sin. It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a lengthy analysis of this theology. For those who desire such a review, many good resources are available.⁷⁹ However, I will briefly comment on this issue.

Young-earth creationists maintain there have been two physical existences on the Earth. Prior to Adam and Eve's sin, paradise literally existed on earth -- there was no disease, decay or animal death. Then, at the Fall, God changed the creation from a perfect place to a fallen one that included those things. However, nowhere does the Bible indicate the world God created was different than ours. Indeed, the Bible tells us the creation was earthly by nature (1 Corinthians 15:46) and not heavenly (1 Corinthians 15:50).⁸⁰

Some Christians point to Genesis 1:31 -- "God saw all that He had made, and it was very good." They argue God would not call a creation that included animal death "very good." However, we must be careful not to put too much weight on our ideas of what "good" means. The Bible does not tell us the creation was perfect. The Hebrew word for good, towb, connotes a practical or economic benefit.⁸¹ Thus, the creation was "very good" for achieving God's goals for mankind -- namely, to allow rational, morally free agents to come into existence and make free choices to love, obey and be in relationship with Him.⁸² Animal death in no way conflicts with that goal.

It is important to examine what happened at the Fall (Genesis 3:14-19). The reality is God judged only those who had sinned. The serpent would crawl on his belly and be bruised on the head by the seed of the woman. Eve was judged by having more pain in childbirth. Adam was judged by having to work harder for his food because the ground would no longer freely give its' fruit. There were no other judgments because all the guilty parties were punished.⁸³ Nothing in this passage states or implies the judgment included the imposition of animal death.

It is also important to keep in mind that Adam and Eve were not created immortal. Eternal life was only available to them through the supernatural "tree of life." If they were not immortal, then the animals were not immortal either. Unlike Adam and Eve, however, the animals did not have access to the "tree of life" and had no way to avoid death.⁸⁴ Also consider God's warning to Adam that, if he ate from the tree of good and evil, he would surely die (Genesis 2:17). Unless Adam understood the concept of physical death, there was hardly any point in telling him the consequence of disobedience would be death. Only animal death would have provided Adam an adequate example of what "death" meant.⁸⁵

Finally, the Bible tells us that God's creative activity ceased on the seventh "day." Genesis 2:1 states: "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed…" The Hebrew word for completed (kalah) means to bring a process to completion.⁸⁶ The following verse tells us God rested from all His work. The Hebrew word for rested, shabat, means to cease, desist and put an end to.⁸⁷ This clearly indicates God's creative activity had ended. Nothing in Scripture suggests that God created carnivores, or changed herbivores to carnivores, after the Fall. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude carnivorous activity was part of the original creation.

There are several problems with the young-earth view of the relationship between sin, death and the atonement. First, although human death is linked with human sin, it moves beyond the clear teaching of Scripture to claim all death is the result of human sin. Second, since animals are amoral creatures that are incapable of sinning, it is an unwarranted extrapolation to extend the consequences of human sin to them. Third, and most important, while it is true there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood, Christ's blood, it does not follow that there could have been no bloodshed before sin.⁸⁸

While I don't believe in the Day-Age interpretation of Genesis, I believe this argument is consistent with the Gap Theory and can be appropriately applied to it as well.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[hmbld]

57 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

With respect to death and what God says about it, I submit the following: Death before Genesis 1:3 Consistent with a Literal Interpretation of Scripture

While I don't believe in the Day-Age interpretation of Genesis, I believe this argument is consistent with the Gap Theory and can be appropriately applied to it as well.

Even with that, one can't support that there was death prior to Genesis 1:2 from any scripture, it is all conjecture.  Even if Adam and Eve were not created immortal, one can't support death happening during creation, for God is creating everything in 7 days, and saying it is very good.  I would have to look, but I believe there is reasonable scriptural support that the animals were not carnivorous, until after the fall.  

[HAZARD]

This doctrine it seems is too simple for most men to understand, so they reject it. Especially the churches for some reason. I have never heard a priest or pastor talk about these things, the devil does not want anyone to know he once ruled the pre-Adamite world, he tried to invade Heaven and de-throne God, he was defeated, and in God's anger God destroyed the earth and every living thing therein. Actually the devil would prefer people don't even think he exists at all, and so he has closed the eyes of many.

2 Peter 3:5-7 expresses this clearly in plain human language,

 5, "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing (emerging) out of the water and in the water:

 6, Whereby the world "THAT THEN WAS," being overflowed with water, PERISHED:
  7, But the heavens and the earth, "WHICH ARE NOW," by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
If "the world that then was" is the same as that between Adam and the flood of Noah, then God made "the heavens and the earth which are now", since the flood of Noah, but this the Bible does not teach. There is no statement in any Scripture that the heavens and the Earth which are now differ from what they were between the times of Adam and Noah. On the contrary, we have a clear record that in six days God made "the heavens and the earth which are now," and there is no record anywhere of a change being made in them by Noahs flood, so that they would have to be made over again after the flood. What kind of change could a flood make in the heavens and the Earth? No flood could change the heavens, for floods on Earth can never cover the heavens. If a change is to be made in the heavens, it must be by divine acts of power other than by floods. At Noahs time no changes were made even in the Earth, much less in the heavens. All that happened was that some men and animals on Earth were drowned. Earth, vegetation, etc., remained the same after the flood as before it.

Artefacts found in shelter in the Flinders Ranges rewrite history of indigenous Australians

November 3, 201611:34am.

 

ABORIGINAL Australians settled in arid parts of the country 49,000 years ago — 10,000 years earlier than previously thought, a rock shelter in South Australia’s Flinders Ranges has revealed.

Remnants of plants, ochre and bones, including one from a rhino-sized marsupial, are among 4300 artefacts uncovered at the site about 550km north of Adelaide.

Some are up to 49,000 years old, research led by La Trobe University archaeologist Giles Hamm and published in the journal Nature shows.

One bone found at the site belonged to the largest marsupial to have existed, the Diprotodon optatuma, a wombat-like creature the size of a rhino.

“None of us can imagine any way that a Diprotodon would have scaled the cliff up to that rock shelter, so it would have to have been brought up there by people,” he said.

The University of Adelaide’s Lee Arnold used radiocarbon and luminescence dating technologies to pinpoint the age of the shelter artefacts. “The approach we’ve taken sets, in many ways, a kind of new benchmark for archaeological dating in terms of its comprehensiveness and the types of techniques that we’ve used,” Dr Arnold said.

Full news story plus pictures link;

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/archaeology/artefacts-found-in-shelter-in-the-flinders-ranges-rewrite-history-of-indigenous-australians/news-story/5133562879ed1a2781fe3bfdbd83c2d3

 

[ARGOSY]

 

Quote

 

I agree with you regarding the Cambrian Explosion condemning the theory of evolution, in all of its permutations.  I would clarify my position on "The Gap Theory" that the fossil record is consistent before and after "the gap in time" because God's creation is always good.  He would have no reason to change the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc., because it was always good.  Something not subject to the "laws" of this universe brought Earth to position of being unacceptable to the Godhead.  I believe that to be the reason for the flooding you speak of.

We see in Genesis 1:2 the state of the already created Earth from the vantage point of one on Earth at that time.  The light of the already created solar sun and Earth's moon is hidden by this new harsh environment.  Genesis 1:3 picks up at this time.

 

 

Yes the earth existed before creation week. But there is no indication, biblically or geologically, that there were two biological eras. We just have one biological era from the pre-Cambrian through until today.. The dominant plants and animals  flow from one period to the other according to the prevalent conditions, but there is no gap in the fossil record. None.   Although the dominant species do change, always there has been the same wide range of existing Kinds since creation week, becoming gradually smaller through extinctions. This is the reality of the fossil record. And fits in with the bible.

Even the KT extinctions have the same situation, dinosaurs lost their dominance, mammals gained dominance.  But this is explained by two events, an impact event reduced dinosaur survival while ark animals were just starting to gain significant numbers on the planet and therefore became more dominant through breeding since the ark.  There is no fossil gap despite the extensive extinctions.  The fossil record does not agree with the gap theory. Neither is it clear in the bible.