Jump to content


Atheists: Is Murder Acceptable With You?

  • Please log in to reply
381 replies to this topic

#381 Dredge


    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 22 May 2017 - 07:17 PM

Pierre-P. Grasse: "Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis ... [paleontologists then] interpret fossil data according to it .... The error in their method is obvious."

#382 Blitzking



  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 509 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 22 May 2017 - 10:38 PM

Wibble: So in these luxuriant forests that went on to produce the coal bearing strata of the Carboniferous, there were no birds or mammals  in this ecosystem in the antediluvian world ?

 Not necessarily. Birds can fly away, IIRC, avocets have been found at 65 mya meaning a 'diverged' water bird existed. Remember, we believe the fossils are the result of a flood, not the eco-system as such, but those buried that were in that zone.
Now you've changed your story, in your previous post you said it would be an ecology preserved by the flood. Ok birds manage to fly away from the cataclysmic tsunami somehow, all taking a course to ensure they only get buried in Jurassic or Cretaceous strata (the latter for any groups existing today), not Permian or Triassic. Right, sounds plausible (not). What's the excuse for the mammals then ?

Of course you simply omit the examples that are found in Carboniferous, and only ever mention the ones that aren't yet found. Didn't I explain that to you with the fruit example? Whatever fruit I don't have in my lunch box you will complain about, and IGNORE the fruit that is there.
 For example there are many of today's plant species in the carboniferous, in this link if you scroll down you can see pictures of them next to their living counterparts. The problem is they are the same species which means those plants were already fully diverged, fully evolved. How silly that you expect evolution to be pushed back and expect plants to evolve quickly yet say that it's fine for them to remain unchanged for 400 million years.....LOL!!!

Yeah things like ferns, horsetails and gymnosperms, these groups appear during the Carboniferous, what's the problem ? Your problem is the complete absence of angiosperms until the Cretaceous (they may have first evolved in the Jurassic). Did they out run the tsunami as well ?

It's hard in our world to imagine creatures that were separate then, that are today like bacon and eggs. That is very much part of the problem because mentally it's almost impossible to imagine an antediluvian world compared todays but you must understand that today's world is basically a desert by comparison.

To the contrary, if all landmass was bound together as Pangaea then it is more likely that that world would be a desert in comparison because rain bearing weather systems would lose their moisture as they penetrated inland.

If we assume the antediluvian world was as the bible described (which only makes sense since such a world comes from the bible) then we start out with one main land mass and one ocean, that land mass was unfathomably large. Even on the greatest continent in today's world, that would still be exceedingly small. When we consider that the environment would be fairly uniform (unlike now) then hypothetically this might remove a need for migration and so forth. 

Again to the contrary, if the environment was uniform there would be a fewer barriers to dispersal and mixing of populations and therefore distinct isolated ecosystems would be less likely.

Wibble: And to test that hypothesis you could check the geographical distribution of dinosaur and human fossils. A quick search will reveal to you that there is no separation in this way consistent with your scenario. I just checked for Tanzania (chosen because of the many early hominin fossils found there) and there is a list of 12 different dinosaur species that have been discovered in the country (but obviously stratigraphically separate).


Mike: We obviously believe that such examples of "hominin fossils" are post-flood otherwise we would argue they are part of the flood strata, and then stratigraphic separation doesn't matter for creation. (as I explained for the umpteenth time in a previous post).

Well at least admit it fits the evolutionary view better if we only find hominin fossils in the uppermost strata (together with a modern plant and animal assemblage) but never find any in strata where dinosaurs are found. Creationists try and have their cake and eat it on this. On one hand they claim geographical separation to explain the anomaly but will then claim carvings at Angkhor Wat or Peruvian stones prove humans and dinos co existed. Also the behemoth and leviathan mention in Job.

I think IndyDave, to be fair to him, gave many rigorous examples to you of evidence of humanity in the rocks, you are disingenuous to pretend none of those things he shown you exist, under the carpet it goes because Wibble, the all-powerful atheist, can dismiss it totalum because he wants to and we are simply to assume because the Wibble god says Dave was wrong, that none of those examples he gave are true despite the cogency of Dave's arguments. :rolleyes:

If you think supposed human tracks that look so obviously carved and unfossilised bones found in unconsolidated sand in a formation of a type known to have been mined for azurite,(with this "Malachite Man' find not even taken seriously by the major creationist organizations) then you have very different standards as to what qualifies as "rigorous" evidence than me.

This concludes my participation in this thread.

Yes I know the cognitive dissonance in trying to defend the flood must be overwhelming

Not to quibble with wibble..


The only reason we DO HAVE all these fossils all over the planet is BECAUSE OF the flood..

How do you think fossils are formed? The willful ignorance of accidentalists is alarming.. You remind me of people who go go around claiming that "Islam is a religion of peace" over and over again as if repeating things makes them true (a la Goebbels)

BTW. Whats a "hominin fossil"? Is that where they dig up bones of extinct apes and try to pretend that they are on their way to Man?

You should read Lubenov's book "Bones of Contention"
You will LAUGH at the phrase "hominin fossil" if you do.
The whole idea is so ridiculous that it is embarrassing..
Read the book with an open an honest mind and then get
back to me on "hominin fossils".. LOL

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users