Jump to content


Photo

Living Fossils Disprove Evolution.


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

#41 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 30 April 2011 - 04:34 AM

Like him, it is your belief that hinders you from seeing the truth in the stratigraphic record, not mine. You are the one ignoring scientific facts.

View Post


Wow Geode, You are far out........there

Perhaps the same can be said of you ignoring the words of the bible to fit in with your "science" pals.

What are the facts anyway?

#42 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 30 April 2011 - 04:49 AM

Wow Geode, You are far out........there

Perhaps the same can be said of you ignoring the words of the bible to fit in with your "science" pals.

What are the facts anyway?

View Post



Actually I am pretty typical of most Christian geologists in the way I think.

#43 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 April 2011 - 04:51 AM

Keeping in mind, that if God is who He says He is, the entire Earth was covered (as provided in the OT), thus rendering your limited and "a priori' (aka totally presupposed) opinion moot.

But, if you wish to continue believing in the religion of evolution, that's up to you.

View Post

My opinion is just fine in terms of my beliefs.

View Post

Indeed, but they don’t comport scripturally (regardless of how you may wish to twist Biblical writings). Which begs the question: If, according to evolutionary lore, man is descended from an ape like creature, what do we (as men) look like in our glorified bodies? Keep in mind, when Jesus appeared (in his glorified body) to his disciples, after the resurrection, they recognized Him as Jesus. There was no mention of Him appearing as some ape-like creature.


I do not believe that God dictated every word of the Bible and even if He had done so, His interpretation of a handful of words that YECs strain over may have been different than what lietralists think. Their version is shown to be wrong by mountains (liertal and otherwise) of geologic evidence.

View Post


It doesn’t matter what you “believe” God said or did; what matters is what the Bible actually says, and not what you attempt to take out of context to make it fit your worldview. Also, if you wish to debate linguistics and the liberal theologians straining at twisting the scriptures in attempts to make them fit the evolutionary hypothesis, I’m all for it.

Further, your attempts to lend credence to the fictitious geological column (and other evolutionary religious mythology) by using the “it just is”, and “saying it’s so” method of pseudo-scientific method fails miserably in the face of scientific empiricism.

I am a Christian and acceptance of evolution is not a religion to me. I do not even post on evolution very often. In this thread I was posting mostly about geology, which is what the video claims to be about. They wrongly dragged evolution into it at the end.

View Post


You are the one who posted an attempt to discount God’s Word (the Flood of Noah) in this thread. If you are not prepared to give account for your postings, then don’t post. Further, the Bible gives warning, in no less than five places, not to “add to” or “subtract from” scripture.

Further you WRONGLY dragged your evolutionary doctrine of the "localized" flood in here. Also, if you wish to discuss Jesus’ corroborations of the Old Testament, and your misinterpretations of it, I would be more than happy. And, if you would like to discuss what Jesus defined as Christian (those who are His), I would be more than happy to that as well.

#44 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 30 April 2011 - 06:17 AM

What are the "scientific" facts again?

What are scientific facts anyway? Do they differ from an ordinary fact?

I always here about these mountains of evidence (facts?) but never seem to see this mountain. Just assumptions and guesses.

#45 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 30 April 2011 - 07:26 AM

Geode,
I don't have alot of time.

The Bahama Banks are the submerged carbonate platforms that make up much of the Bahama Archipelago....The limestone that comprises the Banks has been accumulating since at least the Cretaceous period, and perhaps as early as the Jurassic; today the total thickness under the Great Bahama Bank is over 4500 meters.  http://en.wikipedia....ki/Bahama_Banks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surficial sedimentology of the Middelkerke Bank (southern North Sea)

Detailed surficial investigations over the Middelkerke Bank, a tidal sand bank in the southern North Sea, revealed the relationship between morphology, surficial structures and grain-size parameters. Data from 85 grab samples all over the bank show that on a bank normal profile, the coarser, CaCO3 rich and badly sorted sediments are generally located near the highest point of the bank, seaward at the northern end and landward at the southern end. Sedimentary structures were studied from 239 boxcores sampled on all the morphological units of the bank: crest, flanks and adjacent channels. In the shallower parts, foreset beds are preserved while in the deeper zones, intense bioturbation arises and destroys any structure. The combination between these data and the virtual absence of wave-induced structures indicates that the main agents responsible for the bank shaping are the tidal currents.


I perused several sedimentology abstracts, and found terms like 'bank-type sediment,' 'bank sediment,' and several formations that contain 'bank' in their name. They are rasied areas that obviously would cause outcrops, or sloped areas which could be researched. In this last one, the 'tidal sand bank' is being researched. It is not caused by erosion, but rather deposition. I understand you recognize this, but you want to eclipse this fact by roadblocking content with your terminological objections.

The bottom line is the obvious physics of sedimetation in current, and that old geology (which the common man assumes) was wrong in characterizing sedimentation in a general 'one layer at a time,' uniform principle. It is probable the concerned strata formed rapidly (as the given paper affirms), just as in other places they would have been. Of course, this does not exclude one at a time depostion in floods.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning facies, I understand that many formations or units will contain different facies. That doesn't rule out catastrophic processes. I think the point is that catastrophic processes CAN produce what would be intuitively thought be slow layer cake processes.

I have personally seen stratified and unstratified facies juxtaposed to each other in outcrops. Not being a geologist, I can only give you rough observation, but I know the difference between stratified and non stratified facies. The facies of some units are pretty much the same though, wouldn't you say?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning the polystrate fossils. I apologize, as I inadvertently started the video in wrong place, and missed that part. However, regardless if the geologist was ignorant of the paper you gave us, there are quite a few feet of strata that would be most likely characterized as 'millions of years' old, had the fossilized tree not been there as a 'timepeice.'

Whether or not a geologist, or sedimentologist occassionally recognizes catastophe is irrelevant. The geological timescale will still be their rule of thumb everywhere else. It doesn't matter to them if in a number of areas trees or other polystrate fossils pass through coal. In the textbook, coal still takes hundreds of thousands of years to form.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Your claim that braided rivers falsify what the video is arguing. Why would surficial streams or rivers falsify the catastrophic deposition of deep strata, given enough water, and upheaval of sediment? Because there is an example of slow moving water on the surface, does this falsify transport of sediments which obviously catastrophically covered biota, and polystrate fossils, which in extrapolation contradict the geologic timescale.

I have an example of what you seem to be doing, if you can bear with me. Just an observation about 'streams' I would like to submit to you for evaluation. I have noticed in passing shallow streams or 'branches.' They many times consist of two channels. A smaller channel which is quite a bit narrower, and it is shallow. This indicates the 'uniform' principle which would also characterize of braided streams.

Then there is what I would would call a 'flood channel.' This is much deeper and wider. The expansion is immediate, just above the smaller channel. It will continue out several feet both way to eroded banks. This is indicative of a flood current. It would be my thinking that the flood channel formed first, or there might be evidence of braided streams. Usually there is no evidence of this. It is the flood 'gorge,' and in the bottom the smaller stream, following the gorge.

The point is the smaller 'uniform' stream, which forms in a flood channel, by no means falsifies the fact that the gorge was formed by flood waters. It is also obvious that a shallow stream could form in less than a few hundred years (or less).

#46 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 30 April 2011 - 02:40 PM

Okay, let's get back on track.

1) How do living fossils disprove evolution?
2) How do living fossils support evolution?
3) Should not the fossil record have recorded fossils living up to this point instead of a gap between where they are found in the layers, and present time?

View Post


I agree. Graptolites are one of the most important Paleozoic index fossils. So, why do we have no graptolites in the mesozoic and cenozoic, yet find living graptolite colonies living on the seafloor off New Caledonia?

http://discovermagaz...liveanditsag249

Obviously, graptolites live very deep in the ocean, so their placement in the geologic column is the result of ecology not evolution.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users