Jump to content


Photo

Please Within The Context Of Young Earth Explain The Geologic Strata...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
31 replies to this topic

#21 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 09 October 2012 - 03:28 PM

The meteor theory is that of a worldwide disaster. Traces and aftereffects of this meteor collision are well recorded in those layers relating to the demise of the dinosaurs. Its not that scientists make this stuff up, they debate the for and against arguments for decades, and the general conclusion is that there are extensive signs of a meteor collision at the demise of the dinosaurs, and yet no such signs at the demise of the Permian. You would have this initial impact (whiplash) folowed by tsuanmis, and then darkness , bringing on an ice age. these are all logical scientific projections of a large meteor impact. The coldness and reduced sun would cause a lack of vitamins in dinosaur vertebrae, reducing their calcium production. Reptiles are completely reliant on sunlight for calcium production. Thus they had vertebrae problems at the moment of impact, and then continuously afterwards. this would have been difficult for any large dinos to survive. Maybe a few did.

I'm assuming this occurred at the end of those old great civilizations, that I also believe co-incided with the end of the holocene Climate Optimum. This was the great ice age that ended the dominance of dinosaurs and brought in the dominance of mammals to fill in all the ecological gaps left behind by the dinosaurs. Not saying mammals evolved much, just filled the gaps. I believe this occurred about 3500-3800 years ago.


Awesome, I am glad it is well supported. That sounds very plausible, and was interesting to read. Thanks for sharing.

#22 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 09 October 2012 - 03:35 PM

True! this is basically my argument. The pockets of rarer creatures in any age are misunderstood by evolutionists to belong to the layer in which that creature was common. Thus pockets of ancient mammals are always assumed to be recent. Pockets of now extinct amphibians are always assumed to be ancient. The potential for those various ecosystems to be concurrent is underestimated by evolutionists. However the reason they got their theory, is the general trend does actually exist.

I didn't really understand your point about dinosaurs going extinct, there may be some hidden somewhere, but most did go extinct, we don't see them today. Therefore we can define age of rock through extinctions to a certain extent, because although everything was there from the start 6500 years ago, some extinctions occurred in a specific order, allowing other rarer types (like mammals) to populate the earth.


Well there may be some still alive in remote places in the world, but that wasn't really what I meant. I was more pointing out that although fossils of dinosaurs in a particular layer are a positive indication that that dinosaur lived in that general area during one time, it is pure speculation to say that since you no longer see them in layers above that, that they went extinct at that point in time. They may have migrated and/or not have been fossilized for one reason or another. We seem to see this happening a lot in living fossils. I doubt you would find the Colecanth of today living near where we find Colecanth fossils.

#23 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:08 AM

Well there may be some still alive in remote places in the world, but that wasn't really what I meant. I was more pointing out that although fossils of dinosaurs in a particular layer are a positive indication that that dinosaur lived in that general area during one time, it is pure speculation to say that since you no longer see them in layers above that, that they went extinct at that point in time. They may have migrated and/or not have been fossilized for one reason or another. We seem to see this happening a lot in living fossils. I doubt you would find the Colecanth of today living near where we find Colecanth fossils.


I hear what you are saying, but the fact that large reptiles are very rare in recent history, and very common in fossils, does show a layering according to fossils. I like to apply certain deductive reasoning, and if fossils are found, then no longer found, certain deductive reasoning naturally kicks in. Your point about the possibility that the extinct fossils are localized does not acknowledge that this is not a localized phenomenon. Fossils cease to exist in a specific order universally. Evolutionists conclude the later proliferates evolved from the earlier proliferates. I believe the later proliferates are a rarer form that suddenly was confronted with an abandoned world suitable for them. Both our theories fit in with the layered fossil record whilst many creationists remain in denial about the layers because of the exceptions..

#24 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:42 AM

I hear what you are saying, but the fact that large reptiles are very rare in recent history, and very common in fossils, does show a layering according to fossils. I like to apply certain deductive reasoning, and if fossils are found, then no longer found, certain deductive reasoning naturally kicks in. Your point about the possibility that the extinct fossils are localized does not acknowledge that this is not a localized phenomenon. Fossils cease to exist in a specific order universally. Evolutionists conclude the later proliferates evolved from the earlier proliferates. I believe the later proliferates are a rarer form that suddenly was confronted with an abandoned world suitable for them. Both our theories fit in with the layered fossil record whilst many creationists remain in denial about the layers because of the exceptions..


Yes, it makes sense to say that reptiles flourished at one point in time. I agree.

As for creationists in denial, I take everyones arguments with a grain of salt, and try to find the good points that they make. Although they don't mention post flood deposition much, I am sure they believe some has happened.

#25 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 11 October 2012 - 03:06 AM

Well there may be some still alive in remote places in the world, but that wasn't really what I meant. I was more pointing out that although fossils of dinosaurs in a particular layer are a positive indication that that dinosaur lived in that general area during one time, it is pure speculation to say that since you no longer see them in layers above that, that they went extinct at that point in time. They may have migrated and/or not have been fossilized for one reason or another. We seem to see this happening a lot in living fossils. I doubt you would find the Colecanth of today living near where we find Colecanth fossils.

Absence of proof isn't proof for absolute absence. Especially considering that there are no full reviews of all the layers and as you said. There maybe reasons for the absences as well.

#26 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 October 2012 - 06:47 AM

Jay Said:
I doubt you would find the Colecanth of today living near where we find Colecanth fossils.

Lou Said:
Whats your point here Jay?
IF you look at the fossil record one can tell in an instant that the diversity of times gone by was much greater than it is today, look at elephants or bison, they were found everywhere? A coelacanth in a fossil bed syas that they may have been much more of them at one time and found over a larger range than they are now?? So I don't get your point Jay, Are you trying to disregard the fossil record? Because the record is clear with no interpretations, just as it is.

#27 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:55 AM

No. Meteors don't generate fossil beds.Canada is believed to have been hit with one, this subsequent destruction would have been followed by a huge Tsunami, and there seems to be evidence for such?Please look at the fossil beds in Canada and their relationship to the ancient lake in the center of Canada and also the huge river system close to the dino deposits. Obviously and with no arguement water caused this destruction, however the actual mass shows something that does not jive with a ww Flood. How can you say a Meteor can not make fossils in the area in Northern Canada

Simple. We have tsunami today. the deposits it leaves behind don't turn into rock.

#28 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:58 AM

The meteor theory is that of a worldwide disaster. Traces and aftereffects of this meteor collision are well recorded in those layers relating to the demise of the dinosaurs. Its not that scientists make this stuff up, they debate the for and against arguments for decades, and the general conclusion is that there are extensive signs of a meteor collision at the demise of the dinosaurs, and yet no such signs at the demise of the Permian. You would have this initial impact (whiplash) folowed by tsuanmis, and then darkness , bringing on an ice age. these are all logical scientific projections of a large meteor impact. The coldness and reduced sun would cause a lack of vitamins in dinosaur vertebrae, reducing their calcium production. Reptiles are completely reliant on sunlight for calcium production. Thus they had vertebrae problems at the moment of impact, and then continuously afterwards. this would have been difficult for any large dinos to survive. Maybe a few did.I'm assuming this occurred at the end of those old great civilizations, that I also believe co-incided with the end of the holocene Climate Optimum. This was the great ice age that ended the dominance of dinosaurs and brought in the dominance of mammals to fill in all the ecological gaps left behind by the dinosaurs. Not saying mammals evolved much, just filled the gaps. I believe this occurred about 3500-3800 years ago.

A meteor that wiped out the dinos 4,000 years ago?

You'd be able to see that pretty easily. Posted Image

#29 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 October 2012 - 02:38 PM

Dear Stripe:
You make some categoric statements with no proof what so ever. If the pyroplastic flow from Mt. St. Helens can produce fossils. Fossils are not found everywhere, but if they are buried in the right "holes, depressions and covered thy can and do become fossils??? Hello? Even the desert gives up fossils with little or no water???? To make a categoric statement that a huge tsunami could not have been responsible for the fossil beds in Canada I think is missing the point. If you understand the amount of water surrounding the area of the fossilizations a large Tsunami would have been no different than a flood there is absolutely no proof that all fossils come from the flood (which I assume you do believe). There are fossilized things that have happened "under the right circumstances" and the flood was not the contributor So first of all you mis-read what I inferred? I inferred that the specific dino, fish, mammal and others plants in the Canadian beds "could" have been created by such. I never implied that all dinos were destroyed by "a" tsunami. I am not sure anyone is sure of what caused the dino demise, but the cyclical nature of the Karoo fossil beds show that this was not laid down in one fell swoop, and there are many issues with these beds the creationists brothers of mine have not even scratched the surface, but made assumptions about this and used these as examples of the flood. Flood geology cannot create these layers, and there are issues with flood geology. SInce dinosaur fossil layers in the Grand Canyon are thousands of feet above the flood strata, someone needs to answer how that is possible???

Maybe you don't get me, but I am a creationists, and happen to be a young Earth proponent, BUt given a lack of explanation for the Ark dispersal unreliable explanations with respect to the adaptive variation theory which is being taught like it is fact, and the problems with flood geology that goes unanswered, I lean towards a LOcalized but huge flood the wiped out all mankind, So heres what is important to me, The bible narrative, and science which to me is not the boogie man but footprints int he sand, there are evidences of GODs work in creation that is undeniable. SOme of the pictures painted by creationists I will just have to agree to disagree. I am searching for the truth of GOd in creation. Already there are people on this site talking about dinos, and mammals and separating them like evolutionists into different time zones. C-14 dating of dino and mans bones and mankind have established these all lived contemporaneously with one another, this alos falls in line with the biblical narrative......

#30 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:46 PM

Jay Said:
I doubt you would find the Colecanth of today living near where we find Colecanth fossils.

Lou Said:
Whats your point here Jay?
IF you look at the fossil record one can tell in an instant that the diversity of times gone by was much greater than it is today, look at elephants or bison, they were found everywhere? A coelacanth in a fossil bed syas that they may have been much more of them at one time and found over a larger range than they are now?? So I don't get your point Jay, Are you trying to disregard the fossil record? Because the record is clear with no interpretations, just as it is.


It is weird that you refer to yourself in the third person, especially when you use your real name instead of your forum name (i was reading previous posts attempting to see who lou was). Anyway...

I think you misunderstood my point here. I meant just what MarkForbes said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We cannot know that dinosaurs died off when we see them in one "layer" but not in the "layers" above that. Living fossils are proof of this.

#31 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:05 AM

Jay. apologize for not using my forum name, I am new to this forum, in other forums, some of our long exchanges ended up in everyone agreeing to sate Lou said this, ro Jay said this so the readers would have a clear idea of what is being exchanged and by who, this was subconscious on my part, I will use my forum name in the futre...sorry to be confusing on this forum.

#32 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 13 October 2012 - 01:18 PM

A meteor that wiped out the dinos 4,000 years ago?

You'd be able to see that pretty easily. Posted Image

I should have rather used the word "asteroid" instead of "meteor"

I'm sure we both agree that evolutionary timescales are incorrect. The following link points out that there is a layer of iridium and a layer of shocked quartz in many sites throughout the world at the same geologic layer where the majority of dinosaurs became extinct. both Iridium and shocked quartz point to a dramatic asteroid collision.

http://www.scienceda...00304142242.htm




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users