Fossils: Evidence of evolution or evidence of a global flood?

(James McKay) #107

Are you aware that the place you’re talking about is now dry ground, about 4,000-6,000 feet above sea level? “Those local waters” would have been nothing more than rivers and lakes.


Post deleted

(Phil) #109

Obviously, jammy, all these squid like creatures were scurrying to higher ground when they gave out and piled up in Wyoming. Must have been quite the sight.


Post deleted

(James McKay) #111

Yeah, it really is amazing that a part of Wyoming 100 miles wide was uplifted by more than a mile without releasing enough energy to destroy all life on the planet many times over.

@r_speir, are you actually a real YEC or are you just parodying them?


Post deleted

(Phil) #113

Well, even that is not very gradual. Lets see, 6000 feet over 500 years is about a foot a month, average. May I ask what observations support that scenario?


Post deleted

(Chris Falter) #115

You think that an upthrust of 6000 feet in 500 years is plausible?

Have you studied the physics of plate tectonics?

(Phil) #116

Evidently it sounds as if no amount of data will change your mind, so fair enough. I understand that your interpretation trumps everything else. However, how do you rationalize the apparent ancient age of creation as determined by multiple independent observations with God who is faithful and true?



Then how do you explain the sedimentary layers above the layer with the belemnites? From the article you used, “The Sundance Formation is overlain by the terrestrial deposits of the Late Jurassic (148–155 Ma) Morrison Formation” which by the way contains terrestrial not marine dinosaurs.

I am reminded of a line from “Crocodile Dundee”, “That’s not a knife. That’s a knife.”

(George Brooks) #118


I have no idea how this article is supposed to support a YEC position…

And in a related thread, I am impressed with your impassioned support of Maffat and his bold theories on varying changes of the speed of light:

“Moffatt is not from ICR, AiG, etc… The guy is a cosmologist. Not a cosmetologist. Cosmology is the academic study of the cosmos. It’s a sub-topic of astrophysics.”

But aren’t you cherry-picking? You bring in Moffatt to boggle the minds of those who support mainstream Cosmologies …and yet you reject Moffatt’s Old Earth position on the Cosmos and the Earth.

Surely you must blush before you post things like this?

(James McKay) #119

Is that this post? That wasn’t @r_speir — it was somebody else. Unless he’s sock puppeting, and I can’t see what he’d have to gain from doing that…


Post deleted


Post deleted

(Chris Falter) #122

And who was it that insulted the faith and integrity of everyone that does not agree with his interpretation of Genesis 1-3?

(George Brooks) #124


You are right … for some reason I associated that bit with @r_speir. (My apologies to you Mr. R_).


And no statement could be further from the truth. I believe what I read in the Bible. I do not interpret what I read in the same manner as you do. Good thing the Bible doesn’t say that translation or interpretation is inspired. Well maybe in your mind it does.


The problem is that you are claiming these are flood deposits, not deposits that were created prior to the flood. These deposits are sitting on top of what YEC’s claim are flood deposits. This doesn’t work. These sediments require very calm water to settle out. They are also not contaminated by any terrestrial material. These can’t be flood deposits, and neither can the sediments below them. There simply isn’t enough time on a young Earth to create these deposits, and this is before we get to the whole fossil sorting mess that you guys can’t explain.

Also, can you point to anywhere on Earth where these sediments are being produced at these rates? From what I have read, places like the Caribbean are only seeing a few mm of limestone produced each year. It

(system) closed #127

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.