Seeing different fossils does not automatically mean one came from another, I don't care about the dates. I don't dispute any date you want to use for the age of the universe, but I do have issues are what is claimed about the processes we see in place. You have never observed life changing from one into another, you assume a great deal that you call, facts.
winding up
Sort:
No one said anything about evolution. No one is even talking about evolution. All we're talking about is simply the fact that all types of life do not appear at the same time in the fossil record. An observational fact you continue to deny (and now try to avoid with your red herring here).
Dec 30, 2022
0
#84
They are found in the ground, that is a fact, the time people place on them can be right or wrong, which is not the thing facts are made of.
See, you don't listen. It doesn't matter "the time people place on them." I already explained this to you. It doesn't matter if it's millions of years or thousands. If God created all types of life that there have ever been in one week then we would expect to see all types of life appear together in the fossil record at the same time, regardless of what "time stamp" people put on it. But we don't. Whether the earth is millions or thousands of years old, all life still does not appear together at the same time.
Dec 31, 2022
0
#86
You don't know when they appeared on the earth without knowing the exact time it is not a factual statement, facts will be confirmed, opinions not so much.
Dec 31, 2022
0
#87
tbwp10 wrote:
See, you don't listen. It doesn't matter "the time people place on them." I already explained this to you. It doesn't matter if it's millions of years or thousands. If God created all types of life that there have ever been in one week then we would expect to see all types of life appear together in the fossil record at the same time, regardless of what "time stamp" people put on it. But we don't. Whether the earth is millions or thousands of years old, all life still does not appear together at the same time.
You are missing his point, whether purposefully or not. Your side does place a time stamp on the depth of the ground, both in years and chronologically. You place the lower levels as chronologically older than the upper levels and you simply do not know that.
Kjvav wrote:
tbwp10 wrote:
See, you don't listen. It doesn't matter "the time people place on them." I already explained this to you. It doesn't matter if it's millions of years or thousands. If God created all types of life that there have ever been in one week then we would expect to see all types of life appear together in the fossil record at the same time, regardless of what "time stamp" people put on it. But we don't. Whether the earth is millions or thousands of years old, all life still does not appear together at the same time.
You are missing his point, whether purposefully or not. Your side does place a time stamp on the depth of the ground, both in years and chronologically. You place the lower levels as chronologically older than the upper levels and you simply do not know that.
SO DO CREATIONISTS! AND I/WE DO KNOW THAT! The layers on the bottom of a sequence are older than the ones on top regardless of whether those layers are thousands or billions of years old. Even creationists agree with this. In order to deposit a layer on top of another layer that other layer has to already exist. You can't deposit a layer in mid air! In a three layer cake the "oldest" layer is always the bottom layer and the one that is poured first. For the top layer to be the oldest you've have to suspend it in mid air, and then somehow deposit the bottom layer beneath it, and then drop the suspended layer in top of it.
Jan 7, 2023
0
#89
tbwp10 wrote:
Kjvav wrote:
tbwp10 wrote:
See, you don't listen. It doesn't matter "the time people place on them." I already explained this to you. It doesn't matter if it's millions of years or thousands. If God created all types of life that there have ever been in one week then we would expect to see all types of life appear together in the fossil record at the same time, regardless of what "time stamp" people put on it. But we don't. Whether the earth is millions or thousands of years old, all life still does not appear together at the same time.
You are missing his point, whether purposefully or not. Your side does place a time stamp on the depth of the ground, both in years and chronologically. You place the lower levels as chronologically older than the upper levels and you simply do not know that.
SO DO CREATIONISTS! AND I/WE DO KNOW THAT! Nope, you're wrong. I don't know who you're thinking of, but it's not Bible believers. The layers were laid down in one event, the flood.The layers on the bottom of a sequence are older than the ones on top regardless of whether those layers are thousands or billions of years old. Even creationists agree with this. In order to deposit a layer on top of another layer that other layer has to already exist. You can't deposit a layer in mid air! In a three layer cake the "oldest" layer is always the bottom layer and the one that is poured first. For the top layer to be the oldest you've have to suspend it in mid air, and then somehow deposit the bottom layer beneath it, and then drop the suspended layer in top of it.
EVEN IF they were all put down in a flood, the bottom most layer is STILL the oldest layer that is put down first! And all creationists agree. BUT I don't know any creationist geologists who believe the entire fossil record was due to Noah's flood. In fact, they can't even agree as to where the pre-flood/flood and flood/post-flood boundaries are. Let's start there. Where in the fossil record do we put those marks? Where does the flood begin and end? Every creationist proposal encounters intractable problems. But if you have a solution I'm all ears
Most creationists simply don't know and don't have enough knowledge about what they're talking about and that's OK as long as they don't try to pretend otherwise. But then there are creationists with PhDs who know better but misrepresent the facts and what non-creationist scientists say. That's my biggest gripe. Dishonesty and misrepresentation because that goes against the whole of Christianity. But unfortunately just about every Answers in Genesis article I've seen that quotes scientific research misrepresents that research, and anyone who takes the time to look up and review the research creationists quote can see this for themselves and how they misrepresent the scientific research they quote. That is unethical and that is not a good Christian example and that is my biggest gripe.
I have no problem with creationists joining the discussion as long as they're going to be fair and honest about what the facts actually say. An honest creationist like Ken Coulson https://newcreation.blog/rethinking-the-pre-flood-flood-boundary/
Jan 12, 2023
0
#92
tbwp10 wrote:
EVEN IF they were all put down in a flood, the bottom most layer is STILL the oldest layer that is put down first! And all creationists agree. BUT I don't know any creationist geologists who believe the entire fossil record was due to Noah's flood. In fact, they can't even agree as to where the pre-flood/flood and flood/post-flood boundaries are. Let's start there. Where in the fossil record do we put those marks? Where does the flood begin and end? Every creationist proposal encounters intractable problems. But if you have a solution I'm all ears
Jan 12, 2023
0
#93
tbwp10 wrote:
EVEN IF they were all put down in a flood, the bottom most layer is STILL the oldest layer that is put down first! Exclamation point notwithstanding, that is not only wrong, it is stupid. If I clean out my garage and throw some items in a garbage can the items on the bottom are not older, they were simply thrown in the can first. And maybe only a couple seconds before the next item (layer). Belief that the layers were laid down by the flood specifically denies that layers are arranged based on age.And all creationists agree. All of nobody agrees on anything.BUT I don't know any creationist geologists who believe the entire fossil record was due to Noah's flood. Well, that's quite a test sample .... everyone you know.In fact, they can't even agree as to where the pre-flood/flood and flood/post-flood boundaries are. Let's start there. Where in the fossil record do we put those marks? Where does the flood begin and end? Every creationist proposal encounters intractable problems. But if you have a solution I'm all ears
Kjav now you're just being willfully ignorant. We're talking sedimentology, not dumpsters. And you're analogy is flawed, because that's settling and sorting before a layer solidifies and turns to rock. In a landfill, the oldest layers are on the bottom and most recent ones are added on top! We're talking relative dating principles that YES ALL creationist geologists accept like the principle of superposition and cross-cutting relationships. Logical things where the alternative is logically *impossible*. For example, a fault or intrusion "cutting across" other sedimentary layers MUST be younger and has to have occurred after those other layers, because you CAN’T cut across those other layers unless they already exist to cut across!
You're the one being "stupid" and foolish here.
And there's no need for you to be snarky. There is NO YEC geologist who believes the entire fossil record---including all of the Precambrian---is due to Noah's flood. That's just a fact. YECs see Precambrian basement rocks as going back to the time of creation/the creation week, followed by tectonic "uplift" on the Third Day with the appearance of land; not from Noah's flood. Most YECs put the start of the flood at the Great Unconformity at the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary and end the flood at the Creataceous-Paleogene boundary, or a little higher up before the Eocene. That's still only about 10% of the geologic column.
OK, well you would know best with all your geology training and all your interaction and field work you've done with top YEC geologists on the subject (like I've done, but hey, what do I know. I just personally know creationist geologists like Ken Coulson--see links in above post---Kurt Wise, Paul Buccheim, Leonard Brand, Art Chadwick, and more). It's obvious you didn't even read the links I gave you to creationist geologists themselves who say as much in their own words. But sure, ignore all that.
(You know if you're gonna be a YEC, you should really know what YECs believe)
Jan 12, 2023
0
#97
I believe the Bible . As written.
And as a Bible believer I really couldn't care any less what an unbeliever such as yourself has to say on the subject and I laugh when you tell me what I am called (YEC) and what I must believe now that I've been named by you.
Jan 12, 2023
0
#98
And no, of course I don't read your links. If the so called "YEC" gurus that you are desperately trying to get me to read don't believe the universe was created in six literal 24 hour days as the Bible says or that the earth was destroyed about 4,400 years ago as the Bible says then I really don't care what they say either.
Jan 12, 2023
0
#99
And after the way you've treated TruthMuse in this thread how do you justify calling me snarky? Post #76
Wow, you're hilarious and wrong on all counts. First, I'm not an unbeliever (nor are you God! who sits in judgment of me). Second, we weren't talking about the Bible but the fossil record and you are making false claims about what creationist geologists believe and say. That's on you. Third, I'm not "desperately" trying to get you to read anything. Do what you want. I couldn't care less. But it's foolish to not be open to correction when you are wrong---and not on a theological point---but just the minor fact that creationist geologists don't believe the whole of the fossil record is all attributable to Noah's flood. They believe a lot of it is, but not all of it. And it's just silly to argue the point. Just as it's silly to argue that YEC geologists reject relative principles of dating when they don't. And admitting that doesn't contradict any tenet of YEC. And the links are to young earth creationist geologists. And last, TruthMuse and I made up, so you don't have to worry about us
Yeah, nothing like being insulting to make yourself feel good about your stance on things.
It's a fact TM. We can literally observe succession of different types of life in the fossil record. If God created all life in one week, then we would expect to see all types of life present in the fossil record from the beginning (even if the earth is only 6,000 years old!). It is an observational fact that we don't. An observational fact that you refuse to acknowledge. So what other explanation is there than your wilfull refusal to acknowledge basic reality in order to protect and maintain a fiction contradicted by the simplest of observational facts that everyone else can see?