Fossils out of order?

@dcscccc

Very interesting article. But it applies to why we DO find the monkey on an island.
It doesn’t explain why we DONT find placental mammals on Australia (until humans brought them).

Are you saying that for some reason, placental mammals (like Monkeys) COULD have gone
to Australia … but they just didn’t feel like it?

George

Dcscccc, why is it “funny”? And you say “even according to the evolution…” Why not say, “According to the evidence collected by zoologists…”? I certainly understand that geographic dispersal of organisms by means of things like floating debris can play a role in evolution, but the Theory of Evolution does not really focus on such rafts. So I’m not sure I understand why you say “even according to the evolution”. It is as if you are assuming that “evolution says things” and that sometimes you are surprised that “evolution says things” that you agree have happened.

Meanwhile, it is as if you are finding something controversial in the posts about marsupials and placentals. Why did you consider it important that China has marsupials? You surely know that those of us in North America often have marsupials raiding our trash cans. But how does any of this relate to “Fossils out of order?”

I’m asking you these questions because I’m having difficulty fitting your posts and JohnZ’s posts into the thread. It is almost as if I’m listening to a conversation but the two sides are not talking about the same topic. Could you help me to understand your position?

1 Like

ok. how you define an “out of place fossil”? after this we will check if there is such a fossil.

Here is something to ponder. Missing Trace element triggering mass extinctions

https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth-sciences/did-missing-trace-element-trigger-mass-extinctions

I don’t see where OldTimer made any claims about the meaning of the “out of place fossils” concept, so why would he be the one who should define them for you?

In fact, from what I can tell, you, dcsccc, posted the “Fossils out of order?” question which stated this entire thread. Shouldn’t you be the one who defines the term that you chose to post?

I’ve never seen a paleontology textbook complaining about “fossils out of order”. But I have seen many creationist and evolution-denialist websites claiming there are “fossils out of order”. So how do you and they define “fossils out of order”, dcscccc?

its simple: first, evolutionary biologists themself (dawkins for example) claim that on fossil in the wrong place will falsified evolution. but i never see any definition for “out of plce” by them.

second- i claimed that because of this reason evolution isnt a scientific (lack of definition).

@AMWolfe
Hi, I understand that you presume that I’m making an inappropriate joke. But I am very serious about this. Have a look at James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | TED Talk | TED.com and stop the display at 7.30 minutes and watch the carbondioxide footprints of previous human civilizations. Also consider the slow progress of evolution. The humans of one million years must have been almost as intelligent as we are and we went in no more than 5 millennia from Stone Age to collecting stones on the Moon. Did you ever wonder what our ancestors have done during the last million years? Name anyone who came with an important revolutionary new idea and was not ridiculed for it? Look at my 4 posts about the history of Humanity and Earth and tell me where and why I am wrong. Do not rely on what the so-called experts are saying, but start calculating what can be true and what cannot be true.
Greetings Jan

Why? Because the experts have studied our ancestors and know a little something?

I hear you! I have decided that I can have faith but I don’t have to believe in anything that is not true.

2 Likes

You wrote, "Here is something AIG put out today on the recent paper on the one-two punch from asteroid and volcanism

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/extinction/asteroids-volcanoes-knock-out-dinosaurs/5"…

Massive volcanism and devastating meteors during the Flood. Billions of floating uprooted tree barges, ensuing Ice Age, and drastically different climate afte the Flood.

According to the articles cited by AiG, there was also quite intense acidication in the oceans at the time, so you have to add that in there too.

Am I the only one that’s bothered that none of this is in the Bible?

-Tim

And nothing hit the ark! Amazing!

So what? They’re making this up as they go along.

It feels to me that they are taking information that other scientists have gathered, and then just inserting it into their Flood model. Which as time goes on, it makes the Flood continually more chaotic and complicated … Both during the Flood and afterwards (course there’s definitely some problems before the Flood if you want to get technical).

The reason why it bothers me is that their “Bible Interpretation Literal-Historical Hermenutic” from my point of view gets a little haywire when so many things that were never apart of the Flood model, are introduced into the Flood model, with no qualms whatsoever. Their are fine details of the story that don’t seem to get addressed … The dove plucked off a fresh olive branch, but the creation museum states there was billions of uprooted tree barges floating for hundreds of years. Did the dove get the olive branch from a floating tree as a sign of dry land? As you once stated, Noah became a husband man, seemingly shortly afterward — how did that happen in saline muck? God says to Noah, “No more shall I curse the ground for man’s sake for man is wicked from his youth,” <<< if we are interpreting this passage literally then it would seem to mean that the curse of the ground was lifted. But how can this be since we still have thorns and thistles? And how can it be that one can STILL blame the curse for modern day troubles, when, according to a straightforward reading of the Bible, it is no longer with us?

-Tim

1 Like

It takes a lot of tap-dancing to make the flood work, doesn’t it?

Less tap-dancing, if you make room for a local flood. There will still be some problems of course, but there have been some great articles advocating for a local flood.

-Tim

Not to mention less meteors, volcanoes, tree barges and Ice Ages.

-Tim

@Mazrocon

Tim, a local flood is certainly the inspiration for the story… but on its own it just wouldn’t make any sense.

  1. When Noah steps off his boat in a REGIONAL flood … can he maintain to the startled witnesses waiting for him on the beach - - that he is the father of all new Humanity?

  2. When Noah steps off his boat in a regional flood … is there even any attempt to explain that the sheep on the farmlands behind the new waterfront came from HIS boat?

  3. In a regional flood… is all Earth and Humanity cleansed?

Noah’s Flood works as one giant miracle after another … no less.

George

If it’s a regional flood there is no need to save lions, tigers, bears, kangaroos, etc.

1 Like

You have some great points, George.

The Bible does portray Noah as a sort of “New Adam” so to speak. But in Adam and Eve, according to close inspection of Genesis 4, their are other people outside of Adam’s family. It could be that Noah (like Adam) is a covenantal father or archetypal father.

As to your second point it could be that were hundreds (rather than thoudands) of animals on the Ark. According to James Murphy’s commentary on Genesis, he has notified me that there is no direct passage that would indicate there were carnivore on the ark … If that’s so then it would mean that their was pretty much just livestock on the Ark either for Noah and his family for their consumption and/or to start a farm more easily AFTER the flood … Instead of trying to get sheep elsewhere.

Genesis 9:10 seems to imply that “beasts of the earth” existed outside of the Flood … But it is worded awkwardly.

Your last point about all Earth and all Humanity being cleansed. It’s tough to think about with a regional flood … But it doesn’t seem much more difficult to think that Jesus died for the sins of All, even the people-groups that never heard of Jesus…

The Bible doesn’t put a lot of focus on other people groups beside Israel (with some exceptions of course). Yes, the existence of other people are not mentioned in the Flood account … But you wouldn’t get the impression that there other people besides Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 … But that’s definitely the impression you get in Genesis 4.

Nimrod, the grandson of Ham, 2nd generation from the Flood, already manages to establish 5 city-states … This seems much more plausible if there was other people outside the Flood.

It’s a tough issue for sure … But I think there’s still room for discussion, and possibilities, and cultural / theological things that can still be considered without necessarily going all the way and making Noah a completely mythic character.

-Tim

Hey Beagle.

Read my comment too George. In Murphy’s Commentary he notes that carnivores don’t seem to be on the ark … But perhaps just livestock.

What do you think?

-Tim

Tim,

This is not the interpretation that Evangelical Creationists accept.
So you are really discussing your interpretation with other “more liberal” sub-groups.

There are literally DOZENS of ways to interpret Genesis in “less than purely literal” ways.
I don’t think there has ever been a dispute over how many ways there are.

George