04 Dec 14
Originally posted by C HessWhat do you consider a neat order of fossils?
If the millions upon millions of fossils found represent but a percent of the total, the landmass must have been crowded indeed.
But ignoring that, how do you explain the neat order of fossils, if they all died in a worldwide flood?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
04 Dec 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI've already explained that. When we dig up fossils, we find them ordered, such that a dinosaur fossil is never found in the same strata as a human fossil (for instance). Had they all fallen victim to a massive flood they'd be all over the place. But more than that, we see progression in homologous structures, when we move from bottom most organisms upwards through the strata. So not only did the dead animals order themselves into distinct layers, but they managed to do so in accordance with their respective appearances.
What do you consider a neat order of fossils?
04 Dec 14
Originally posted by C HessIt's all the result of intelligent design. Didn't you know that? Those were REALLY smart animals, they KNEW how to die.
I've already explained that. When we dig up fossils, we find them ordered, such that a dinosaur fossil is never found in the same strata as a human fossil (for instance). Had they all fallen victim to a massive flood they'd be all over the place. But more than that, we see progression in homologous structures, when we move from bottom most organisms upwards t ...[text shortened]... into distinct layers, but they managed to do so in accordance with their respective appearances.
05 Dec 14
Originally posted by C HessThat type of layering order occurs naturally because of the settling of the dead animals of different kinds in the worldwide flood.
I've already explained that. When we dig up fossils, we find them ordered, such that a dinosaur fossil is never found in the same strata as a human fossil (for instance). Had they all fallen victim to a massive flood they'd be all over the place. But more than that, we see progression in homologous structures, when we move from bottom most organisms upwards t ...[text shortened]... into distinct layers, but they managed to do so in accordance with their respective appearances.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
05 Dec 14
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, that doesn't even begin to explain it. Why would all big dinosaurs float to the bottom much faster than humans, yet much slower than all specimens of certain insects? It simply can't be explained by a flood hypothesis.
That type of layering order occurs naturally because of the settling of the dead animals of different kinds in the worldwide flood.
05 Dec 14
Originally posted by C HessYes it can. You ain't smart enough to trick me to fall for your nonsense. Give it up already. 😏
No, that doesn't even begin to explain it. Why would all big dinosaurs float to the bottom much faster than humans, yet much slower than all specimens of certain insects? It simply can't be explained by a flood hypothesis.
05 Dec 14
Originally posted by C HessThe layering occurred while the waters receded. It took over a year.
Then, explain it. What natural mechanism can you point to that would allow for this layered order in a chaotic flood?
How else would fossils become layered so neatly except that a very large amount of water receded over the entire globe in a short period of time?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
06 Dec 14
Originally posted by josephwThrow ten ants, ten spiders, ten mice and ten dogs (all dead, or it's animal cruelty) into a large pool. Throw in a lot of mud, rocks and sand too. Let the water receed.
The layering occurred while the waters receded. It took over a year.
If you have all the mud, sand and rocks in distinct layers at the bottom, with all the ants in the lowest layer, all the spiders and dogs in the middle layer, and all the mice in the top layer, and they're ordered by appearance, your explanation for the world wide flood works. It's also perfectly acceptable if you get spiders at the bottom, and ants in the middle. I'd even accept it if you get the spiders and ants separated such that one is in the bottom layer, and the other is distributed across both top layers.
The fossil record is such that we find prehistoric insects at the bottom (insects wouldn't float first to the bottom), we see a progression of forms from the bottom layers and up, and we never find prehistoric insects, dinosaurs and humans in the same layers (or there wouldn't be a progression of forms).
Saying that the layering occured while the waters receeded explains none of that.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
06 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipI'm not going to sit through all that, but if his flavour of creationism is a 6000 year old universe, where fossils are explained by a worldwide flood some 4000 years ago, he's wrong.
But this person says [b]Creation is a Scientific Fact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dlsw9wsN60[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
06 Dec 14
4 edits
Originally posted by C HessAll creationists are not teaching 6,000 years since the creation of the world.
I'm not going to sit through all that, but if his flavour of creationism is a 6000 year old universe, where fossils are explained by a worldwide flood some 4000 years ago, he's wrong.
I watched this video before long ago. And I watched about 85% last night.
I don't recall that 6,000 year old matter being raised. Maybe after the portion I saw it was.
Besides, sometimes there are good points which merit attention even though another concept is not good.
I don't favor a pin pointing the age of the universe and earth based on the Bible.
But I think the matter of soft tissue found in fossils supposedly 60 million years old, is a point which cannot be ignored.
Do you agree that soft tissue or blood cells still remaining in a fossil allegedly 60 millions years old deserves some attention ?
Now I may be getting my videos mixed up.
This is one I recommend and saw a lot of last night.
Evolution Demolitian
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
06 Dec 14
Originally posted by sonshipI didn't mean to imply that the man in the video is a YEC. I haven't watched the video, so I wouldn't know exactly what flavour of creationism he adheres to. I merely pointed out that if he is, he's wrong. As for other flavours of creationism, I'd have to hear their arguments.
All creationists are not teaching 6,000 years since the creation of the world.
I watched this video before long ago. And I watched about 85% last night.
I don't recall that 6,000 year old matter being raised. Maybe after the portion I saw it was.
Besides, sometimes there are good points which merit attention even though another concept is not good ...[text shortened]... of last night.
[b]Evolution Demolitian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf32BXMSN7A[/b]
Regarding soft tissue in dinosaurs, that certainly was mysterious when it was first discovered about ten years ago, but has since been explained to my own satisfaction:
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Maybe I will watch the video when I have the time, and respond to it.