I believe that it has no evidence whatsoever. It is nonsense.
Well, I’m a little hesitant to move forward for fear of diverging onto a huge tangent…but…fossils? I mean…they exist?
Yes. The fact that fossils exist is evidence of the world wide flood. We find massive graveyards of fossils, some spreading over large areas of some US states. We find massive graveyards of all sorts of animals jumbled on top of each other in a mess of bones. The bison in the US used to cover the plains but we don’t find fossils for all the dead bison, because, as normally happens, they died and were eaten by other animals and their bones rotted. The fact that there are so many preserved fossils demonstrates they had to be buried and quickly covered before they could rot.
1 Like
This is more propaganda than fact. Anyone who learns the first thing about fossils learns that they are well-sorted into different strata depending on what age they were buried in, and that this matches really well with the kinds of animals and plants evolution says we should expect to see in the different ages of the Earth.
Who told you this, and how do you know it’s reliable information?
7 Likes
I’ve seen pictures. The people I listen to appear to be honest and knowledgeable about the subject. You can go to icr or aig if you would like more information.
Hi Bill,
Just a little piece of advice here. When you’re making claims such as this, can you please provide us with a link to the pictures concerned? In the absence of something that we can check out for ourselves, none of us can possibly have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, let alone give you any indication as to whether it has any merit or not.
5 Likes
Not necessarily. Soft tissue does rot quickly and so is seldom preserved. Bones take much longer to decompose and so if they are covered they can be converted to fossils. Bone beds are found and usually represent an area where a large number of bodies collected, such as in the bend of a river when bodies that wash down collect. Most of the fossils found are not in bone beds.
I’m afraid you have been sold a bill of goods.
If fossils proved the flood, we would see the following:
-
frozen dinosaur meat in the same fields and mountains as frozen Mammoth meat.
-
we would find drowned whale fossils mingled with drowned marine reptile fossils associated with the Dino age; but they are never found together.
-
we would find drowned elephants and drowned rhinos mixed in with the drowned vegetarian dinosaurs;
-
we would find drowned brontosaurs and other giant dinos in layers above drowned rhinos; but we never do. We always find them (so-called drowned ) on levels below the levels where rhinos and hippos have been (drowned?) turned into fossils.
-
we wouldn’t find fossil layers in the middle of all the other fossil layers where snails or small mammals are leaving leisurely trails as they move through their landscape… which according to you is actually going through a violent flood upheaval.
-
we wouldn’t find primitive plant pollen only on the lowest levels and the more sophisticated plant pollen only at the upper levels… even if the primitive plants are taller than the some of the discovered sophisticated plant pollens.
In short, @Bill_Smith, your folks don’t have a clue what they are talking about.
6 Likes
Please, I’ll take the ‘fossils prove the flood’ claim, or indeed, any YEC claim seriously when we see one placental mammal found in the same stratum as a non-avian dinosaur. It’s an argument from silence, but the silence is awfully suspicious, given the huge amount of fossils we have discovered. To me it seems to be solid proof that they lived at completely different eras.
7 Likes
Okay…so the fact that there are fossils of things that no longer exist, generally laid down in order of complexity, not size, is not evidence of evolution at all? Isn’t it odd that all the animals that we see today survived the flood, but that Noah did not take on board all those animals for which we have fossils? Why didn’t he take those?
2 Likes
Assuming this is true, it’s hard to make the leap from ‘massive single catastrophic event’ to "‘worldwide’ massive single catastrophic event’.
You certainly are cutting it close! Depending on how aware your correspondent is, he might dispute your timing. Here is some introductory commentary, which depending on how people define things, either confirms your position perfectly, or refutes it. [In my own postings, I avoid some troubles by saying “Large Placentals”, or “Large Mammals”.]
“Stem Group is not the same as True Placentals”
“True placental mammals (the crown group including all modern placentals) arose from stem-group members of the clade Eutheria, which had existed since at least the Middle Jurassic period, about 170 MYA). These early eutherians were small, nocturnal insect eaters, with adaptations for life in trees.”
“The Word May Seems a Small Quibble?”
“True placentals may have originated in the Late Cretaceous around 90 MYA, but the earliest undisputed fossils are from the early Paleocene, 66 MYA, following the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event.”
“The species Protungulatum donnae was thought to be a stem-ungulate known 1 meter above the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary that marks the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event and Purgatorius, previously considered a stem-primate, appears no more than 300,000 years after the K-Pg boundary;] both species, however, are now considered non-placental eutherians.”
“The rapid appearance of placentals after the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous suggests that the group had already originated and undergone an initial diversification in the Late Cretaceous, as suggested by molecular clock.”
[End of Quote]
Reggie, this last sentence is almost subliminal! Because placentals seemed to jump onto the scene, the writer prefers to see this as evidence that “placentals had already originated … with some diversification” before all the Dinos were wiped out.
Of course, this doesn’t mean anyone will necessarily find fossils for this initial group… but it could happen!
1 Like
Maybe that was a bad example. I will reword it:
I will take Young Earth Creationism seriously when we find a large mammal in the same stratum as a non-avian dinosaur.
3 Likes
But that is not what we should see with a global flood. In order to get a massive collection of fossils you need time for those animals to live and die to get those types of numbers.
“Whitcomb and Morris cite with approval a paleontologist who estimates that the Karroo Formation of southern Africa is believed to contain 800 billion fossil vertebrates with an average size of the fox.38 There are 126 billion acres on the surface of the earth. Only 30 percent of this area is land, giving a land area of 38 billion acres. If 800 billion animals were spread over the 38 billion available acres, there would be 21 animals with an average size of a fox, per acre, from this deposit alone. This does not include all the vertebrate fossil deposits throughout the rest of the world. Assuming that the Karroo beds are only 1% of the fossil vertebrates in the world (the Karroo beds occupy much less than 1% of the sedimentary column) means that 2100 animals per acre occupied the preflood world. Since an acre is 4840 square yards, each animal would have only 2 square yards, or 18 square feet, of territory. That is an area only 4.2 wide by 4.2 feet long. This can be put in a setting that most Americans can understand. The average house lot is about a quarter acre. Can you imagine every house in your neighborhood surrounded by 525 hungry animals the size of a fox? I, for one, would not venture out of doors. Obviously this is far too many animals.”–Glenn Morton
Fossil graveyards are one the strongest evidences against a young Earth and a global flood as the cause of these deposits.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:3, topic:37536”]
The fact that there are so many preserved fossils demonstrates they had to be buried and quickly covered before they could rot.
[/quote]
Rapid burial doesn’t require a global flood or a recent flood, so it isn’t evidence for either.
4 Likes
Appearances can be deceiving.
2 Likes
Post deleted
Post deleted
Woah. I’ve never heard this before. I don’t need exact numbers, but if you had to guess, how many fossils are in this “sizable portion” vs. how many have evolutionists explained so far? Ballpark numbers would be really useful!
How many fossils do you think there are still undiscovered? Are there any percentages of unexplainable vs explainable by evolution that you would consider conclusive evidence for or against evolution?
Psalm 29 is speaking in the present tense. Whatever the subject is, it’s not the flood of Noah’s time.
1 Like
I love a good conspiracy theory. You have any more details on this totally secret conspiracy? Can you explain why 100% of the scientists would agree to this? This would have to include the scientists that are YEC.
4 Likes