Genesis 1:1-2:3

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

On fossil strata and so forth . . .

A cataclysmic event (i.e. the Flood) could create everything you see "with age" in a matter of, say, 40 days.

Matt,

With respect, you are way off base. There is no possible way (of which I am aware) that the distribution of fossils could be caused by a worldwide flood (or any other cataclysmic event). Your theory was touted quite a while back by Henry Morris, and is not remotely tenable. Of course, God can do what He wants. But if the fossil layers were distributed in the flood, then God intentionally miraculously made them lay out in such a way that it would emphatically appear impossible that they were laid out in the flood. In other words, one would have to assume that God worked a miracle in order to deceive us.

It would be a possibility if there was a moderately heterogeneous distribution of fossils. But they are not at all heterogeneous. You never find elephant bones in the same layer as T-Rex bones. You never find mouse fossils at the same layers as dinosaur fossils. You never find dolphin fossils at the same layers as trilobyte fossils.

Simply put:
The distribution of fossils is utterly impossible to explain by means of a worldwide flood.


If you want to argue against evolution, great. But please do not use arguments such as this one. Bad science does nothing to help our cause. It just makes people laugh at us (and rightfully so, in this case).

[Edited on 3-8-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Puddleglum]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

On fossil strata and so forth . . .

A cataclysmic event (i.e. the Flood) could create everything you see "with age" in a matter of, say, 40 days.

Matt,

With respect, you are way off base. There is no possible way (of which I am aware) that the distribution of fossils could be caused by a worldwide flood (or any other cataclysmic event). Your theory was touted quite a while back by Henry Morris, and is not remotely tenable. Of course, God can do what He wants. But if the fossil layers were distributed in the flood, then God intentionally miraculously made them lay out in such a way that it would emphatically appear impossible that they were laid out in the flood. In other words, one would have to assume that God worked a miracle in order to deceive us.

It would be a possibility if there was a moderately heterogeneous distribution of fossils. But they are not at all heterogeneous. You never find elephant bones in the same layer as T-Rex bones. You never find mouse fossils at the same layers as dinosaur fossils. You never find dolphin fossils at the same layers as trilobyte fossils.

Simply put:
The distribution of fossils is utterly impossible to explain by means of a worldwide flood.


If you want to argue against evolution, great. But please do not use arguments such as this one. Bad science does nothing to help our cause. It just makes people laugh at us (and rightfully so, in this case).

[Edited on 3-8-2006 by biblelighthouse]

Joseph,

Are there some articles out there which explain this a little more thoroughly (both why the catastrophic event theory is wrong, and whatever their alternative is)? The only two positions that I'm relatively familiar with are the catastrophic event (=Flood) and evolution . . .

Thanks,

-Jess

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Puddleglum

Joseph,

Are there some articles out there which explain this a little more thoroughly (both why the catastrophic event theory is wrong, and whatever their alternative is)? The only two positions that I'm relatively familiar with are the catastrophic event (=Flood) and evolution . . .

Thanks,

-Jess

I'll see what I can find. I have read stacks and stacks of books and articles and web pages on creation/evolution from every angle, and it has gotten to the point that I don't remember where I read what.

The bottom line is that the fossils are too neatly stratified to be explained by means of a flood. If elephants, tigers, dinosaurs, trilobytes, dolphins, mice, eagles, and pterodactyls all got fossilized at the same time, then there should be a moderate amount of mixing together in the fossil records. You should be able to find elephant bones in the same layers as dinosaur bones, for example. But that never happens. The most straightforward explanation is simply that dinosaurs were fossilized before elephants were, eagles were fossilized after pterodactyls were, etc. Note that I am not making any assertions about how much time passed in between fossilizations. To determine that kind of thing, you get into detailed discussions about radiometric dating (NOT carbon dating).

So I am not saying how long it took for the fossil record to be laid out. I am just saying that there is no way it occurred by means of a global flood.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

You never find elephant bones in the same layer as T-Rex bones.

Wow. I guess all the scientists were wrong when, in the tar flats of the Midwest US and in strata in Vermont they found shellfish, mammals (as I recall some kind of deer or in the deer family), human footprints and dinosaur bones all in the same tar layer.

God didn't deceive anyone, and Ross' nonsense in purporting theistic evolution tries to say that God "deceived" us because the universe has the appearance of age. Maybe, if one took five seconds to read Genesis 1, they would see that God actually created everything (including Adam) as mature. But that would be too easy.

Ask an Israelite what he would have thought after Moses wrote Genesis 1.

The Assembly vehemently disagrees with theistic evolution, day age theories, gap theories and all the other "hopefully" Darwinianism that is out there.

"It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,[1] for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,[2] in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good."

And they didn't mean "ages".

Its not bad science, its biblical fact that hold scientific reality.

 

[LadyFlynt]

I'm definately with Matt on this one.... (Yes, that's my bubble pipe for when I'm thinking)

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by LadyFlynt]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

I guess all the scientists were wrong when, in the tar flats of the Midwest US and in strata in Vermont they found shellfish, mammals (as I recall some kind of deer or in the deer family), human footprints and dinosaur bones all in the same tar layer.

I challenge you, Colleen, or anyone else to back up this statement with evidence. I think you're blowing smoke.

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

God didn't deceive anyone

I never said that He did. I just said that He would be if a person were to accept your theory.

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

The Assembly vehemently disagrees with theistic evolution, day age theories, gap theories and all the other "hopefully" Darwinianism that is out there.

Who are you arguing with? I didn't vote for darwinianism, evolution, etc.

All that I said is that you cannot account for the Earth's fossils by assuming Noah's Flood as the cause. It is an utter impossibility.

Come up with some other non-evolutionistic theory to account for the fossils. That's fine. But don't spout off garbage with no scientific backing. A flood simply could not naturally deposit fossils in the strata as we have them.


I'm looking forward to seeing your "Vermont tar layer" proof. I would be very interested in learning more about it, if it is true. That would certainly be something totally different from what has been found in the fossil layers elsewhere throughout the world. It would certainly count as a very important find!

 

[LadyFlynt]

http://www.earthage.org/floodevidences/floodevid.htm

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
http://www.earthage.org/floodevidences/floodevid.htm

Colleen, the title of the article is, "Scientific Evidence for Rapid Deposition of Sediments".

I totally AGREE that sedments can be deposited rapidly. And I even believe that a number of fossils probably can be attributed to Noah's flood.

I am quite aware of polystrate fossils, as well.


So you are preaching to the choir. My argument is very specific:

I do not believe that a worldwide flood can account for the fossil strata we see deposited worldwide.


Was Noah's flood global? Possibly. But that's not what brought about all the world's fossil layers.

Can fossils be made quickly? Yes. But that still doesn't mean that all the world's fossils were laid down at the same time.


Specifically, I would like to see some solid proof that dino bones, elephant bones, tiger bones, eagle bones, pterodactyl bones, etc., have been found coexisting in the same fossil layer. THAT is what I am saying has not been found. And if the fossils are not heterogeneous in that way, then they were not laid down simultaneously by a global flood. That doesn't mean there was no flood . . . it just means the flood didn't cause the fossil layers.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Also, Colleen, I would recommend using more reputable sources that the webpage you referenced. Just for example, I found this quote on there:

The Earth May Not Be "Billions of Years" Old After All!!!
That's because there are some (tiny little) Major PROBLEMS with Radiometric Dating

What if any Carbon 14 date over 5,000 years old is known to be unreliable?

I would recommend completely ignoring any website that uses arguments like that. It is proof that they don't have a clue about what scientists are even claiming.

The fact is that NOBODY in the scientific world uses Carbon 14 dating to date ANYTHING in the millions or billions of years. They ALL know that the 1/2 life of Carbon 14 is around 5,000 years, and becomes unreliable at very high ages.

Again, I want to be clear: I don't mind if a person wants to argue for a young earth. That's fine. But I will scream if one more person tries to bash Carbon 14 dating as a way to "prove" that the earth is young. Sorry, but not even atheistic scientists use Carbon 14 dating for those kinds of claims, so you just aren't going to convince anyone with that argument.