Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,575 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,003,809
Pageviews Today: 1,876,423Threads Today: 665Posts Today: 14,062
09:56 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places

 
TexasPaleo
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 86575420
United States
02/11/2024 10:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
Video by Dr. Joel Duff. 54 minutes.


1677

Last Edited by TexasPaleo on 02/11/2024 10:02 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3074222
Australia
02/11/2024 10:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
In an infinite universe...

Any amount of time...is a very short time.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29835346
United States
02/11/2024 10:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
The earth has so many evidences of major global flood. “Carbon dating” is based on fallacies. But hey, it makes more sense that over billions of years, those sea shells moved up with the ground as mountains formed… We all came from nothing. My earliest ancestor was a rock? Lmao. Your religion of evolution is a comical joke at best….
TexasPaleo  (OP)

User ID: 86575420
United States
02/11/2024 10:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
The earth has so many evidences of major global flood. “Carbon dating” is based on fallacies. But hey, it makes more sense that over billions of years, those sea shells moved up with the ground as mountains formed… We all came from nothing. My earliest ancestor was a rock? Lmao. Your religion of evolution is a comical joke at best….
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29835346


Watch the video you might learn something which is better than being ignorant.

Joel Duff is a Christian by the way.

Last Edited by TexasPaleo on 02/11/2024 10:19 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29835346
United States
02/11/2024 10:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
The earth has so many evidences of major global flood. “Carbon dating” is based on fallacies. But hey, it makes more sense that over billions of years, those sea shells moved up with the ground as mountains formed… We all came from nothing. My earliest ancestor was a rock? Lmao. Your religion of evolution is a comical joke at best….
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29835346


Watch the video you might learn something which is better than being ignorant.

Joel Duff is a Christian by the way.
 Quoting: TexasPaleo


If you don’t believe the Bible, you’re not much of a Christian. I’ve spent more hours than necessary for one person studying creation from a biblical perspective. Genesis clearly lays out the foundations of creation, how it happened, and when. It’s not open for yours or anyone else’s interpretation. If you’re claiming to be a Christian and arguing the earth is billions of years old, you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Pretty simple. Carbon dating is subjective at best. That’s all there is to it. Nice try though pal.
TexasPaleo  (OP)

User ID: 86575420
United States
02/11/2024 10:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
If you don’t believe the Bible, you’re not much of a Christian. I’ve spent more hours than necessary for one person studying creation from a biblical perspective. Genesis clearly lays out the foundations of creation, how it happened, and when. It’s not open for yours or anyone else’s interpretation. If you’re claiming to be a Christian and arguing the earth is billions of years old, you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Pretty simple. Carbon dating is subjective at best. That’s all there is to it. Nice try though pal.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29835346


Young Earth Creationism fails horrifically every possible way it can be analyzed and tested whether by looking at Geology, Taxonomy, Bio-geography, Phylogenetics, DNA, the Fossil Record and so many more ways we can study Earth and life.

When you have a continuous German tree ring record going back 12,000 years and annual ice cores layers going back 800,000 years it's time to doubt the story.

When everything alive can be fitted into nested hierarchies that can be validated with DNA and phylogeny studies it's time to doubt the insane concept that the millions of living species are all distinct created "kinds". They are not, they are related through common ancestry way back... thaty is EVERY. SINGLE. CREATURE on the planet including the millions of extinct species.

By the way carbon dating is only good for about 50,000 years back so it can not be used for things that are millions of years old they use other elements. You are displaying your ignorance.

Quick lesson: When radioactive uranium is taken up in lava and the rock cools the uranium decays to lead at a known rate. When you measure the ratio of parent (uranium) to daughter (lead) you know how long the rock has been a rock and therefore you now have a minimum age of that rock. That fact that when you radiometrically the volcanic rock in the Geologic Column they date from younger as you go up and older as you go down. Funny, isn't it? It's almost like we can use science to figure things out.

Last Edited by TexasPaleo on 02/11/2024 10:48 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 84880546
United States
02/11/2024 10:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
If you don’t believe the Bible, you’re not much of a Christian. I’ve spent more hours than necessary for one person studying creation from a biblical perspective. Genesis clearly lays out the foundations of creation, how it happened, and when. It’s not open for yours or anyone else’s interpretation. If you’re claiming to be a Christian and arguing the earth is billions of years old, you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Pretty simple. Carbon dating is subjective at best. That’s all there is to it. Nice try though pal.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29835346


Young Earth Creationism fails horrifically every possible way it can be analyzed and tested whether by looking at Geology, Taxonomy, Bio-geography, Phylogenetics, DNA, the Fossil Record and so many more ways we can study Earth and life.

When you have a continuous German tree ring record going back 12,000 years and annual ice cores layers going back 800,000 years it's time to doubt the story.
 Quoting: TexasPaleo


ok, Carbon dating is only accurate up to around 3,000 years and very often it's just way off

scientists found a WW2 bomber left behind in Greenland for 50 years and discovered it was under 150 METERS of ice...

the rings on ice core samples are snowstorms and are probably not more than a few thousand years old

the evidence in favor of a Bible-based understanding of life, history, archeology, science, truth is far more massive than the dying theory of evolution...

.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29835346
United States
02/11/2024 10:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
If you don’t believe the Bible, you’re not much of a Christian. I’ve spent more hours than necessary for one person studying creation from a biblical perspective. Genesis clearly lays out the foundations of creation, how it happened, and when. It’s not open for yours or anyone else’s interpretation. If you’re claiming to be a Christian and arguing the earth is billions of years old, you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Pretty simple. Carbon dating is subjective at best. That’s all there is to it. Nice try though pal.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29835346


Young Earth Creationism fails horrifically every possible way it can be analyzed and tested whether by looking at Geology, Taxonomy, Bio-geography, Phylogenetics, DNA, the Fossil Record and so many more ways we can study Earth and life.

When you have a continuous German tree ring record going back 12,000 years and annual ice cores layers going back 800,000 years it's time to doubt the story.
 Quoting: TexasPaleo


Trees quite commonly produce more than one ring a year. And the ice layers have been disproven as an argument for old earth theory. The WW2 planes in Greenland were buried in over 250ft of ice. At the growth rate used to explain an old earth, those planes would’ve been there for centuries, that is if they were capping at about 14” a layer per year of growth. But they were discovered 50 years after landing there. At 250ft below the ice. How is that possible? You can’t use tree rings and ice layers as a way to age the earth. It doesn’t work. It’s again based on fallacies just as carbon dating is. This guy is not a true Christian, who is he to question the God and claim to be a Christian? I don’t need to waste 54 min of time watch him give the same failed arguments as other evolutionist nut jobs. I didn’t come from a rock, neither did you. Unless you consider us from dust of the earth, then I can agree with you. Just not in the fish monkey way.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 81722862
United States
02/11/2024 10:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
Video by Dr. Joel Duff. 54 minutes.


1677
 Quoting: TexasPaleo


Fossils got created in an instance in time
They aren't being created now
Just look at the fossils of animals eating another animal mid bite
Fossil dating is just a bunch of lies
TexasPaleo  (OP)

User ID: 86575420
United States
02/11/2024 10:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
ok, Carbon dating is only accurate up to around 3,000 years and very often it's just way off.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 84880546

Says who? That's just a lie.

It's used regularly and reliably at archaeological sites.

Last Edited by TexasPaleo on 02/11/2024 10:52 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29835346
United States
02/11/2024 10:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
ok, Carbon dating is only accurate up to around 3,000 years and very often it's just way off.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 84880546

Says who? That's just a lie.

It's used regularly and reliably at archaeological sites.
 Quoting: TexasPaleo


It’s not reliable. Creationists sent lava samples from a volcanic eruption in the 1960s (specimen sent to several labs across the nation in the 1970s) and the samples were aged variously between 20,000 and 200,000 years old. They trolled em good on that one lol. Do you understand how carbon dating is performed? It’s based on assumptions. It’s not based on evidence. You’re arguing for the wrong team my guy. If you are ignorant to the Bible and to common sense, that’s one thing. If you’re just dipping for anything you can to justify a lifestyle based on your own subjective morals, because you don’t want to accept Christ, that’s not good at all. Also, I’m glad there is other smart folks here. I think you bit off more than you can chew with your post tonight. Best to just delete it and try again another time with a fresh batch of GLP people.
TexasPaleo  (OP)

User ID: 86575420
United States
02/11/2024 11:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29835346

Trees quite commonly produce more than one ring a year.


Probably in certain trees and unusual conditions but then you'd have to say every year was usual and I doubt the tree used are ones that produce multiple rings a year.

This is the usual Creationist tactic of bringing up an unlikely scenario and pretending it's the norm or bringing up technical issue as if the people that spend their entire careers doing the work somehow don't account for that specific issue as if they are stupid.

People that do radiometric dating run MULTIPLE samples and plot things on scatter diagrams because the correct results will cluster tightly together on the chart and the contaminated samples will appear randomly on the chart in no pattern.

Tree ring data is pulled from a ton of overlapping tree samples and tree rings and carbon dating correlate well with each other. There is no problem with either of them.

Creationists are find with Carbon dating back to Bible days but any further back suddenly it's not reliable. Which is it?
TexasPaleo  (OP)

User ID: 86575420
United States
02/11/2024 11:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
It’s not reliable. Creationists sent lava samples from a volcanic eruption in the 1960s (specimen sent to several labs across the nation in the 1970s) and the samples were aged variously between 20,000 and 200,000 years old. They trolled em good on that one lol. Do you understand how carbon dating is performed?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29835346

Creationists have been caught sending fake samples to labs.

Assumptions don't produce predictable results.

Please post a citation for your claim. I have not heard that one maybe you are referencing Mt. St. Helens?

Wood from Pompeii was carbon dating and it came back to 79 C.E. or very close which is the correct date.

They use carbon dating in the Middle East and working out when places were occupied are those wrong as well?

Last Edited by TexasPaleo on 02/11/2024 11:14 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29835346
United States
02/11/2024 11:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29835346

Trees quite commonly produce more than one ring a year.
 Quoting: TexasPaleo


Probably in certain trees and unusual conditions but then you'd have to say every year was usual and I doubt the tree used are ones that produce multiple rings a year.

This is the usual Creationist tactic of bringing up an unlikely scenario and pretending it's the norm or bringing up technical issue as if the people that spend their entire careers doing the work somehow don't account for that specific issue as if they are stupid.

People that do radiometric dating run MULTIPLE samples and plot things on scatter diagrams because the correct results will cluster tightly together on the chart and the contaminated samples will appear randomly on the chart in no pattern.

Tree ring data is pulled from a ton of overlapping tree samples and tree rings and carbon dating correlate well with each other. There is no problem with either of them.

Creationists are find with Carbon dating back to Bible days but any further back suddenly it's not reliable. Which is it?


I’m not fine with any carbon dating. It’s not a real scientific process. How many trees do you know of that “disprove” creationism according to your standards? Evolutionary religion is taught in schools as if it concrete fact, that started in the 60s when they started removing the Bible. You can see how the world has regressed in the last 70 years right? You’re on GLP for crying out loud. You must be aware of the global agenda at play. You think it’s for money and power? They have all the money and power. It’s about your soul my friend. Think a little deeper than you have been. Again, you’re on the wrong side. Those people with that equipment doing those “studies” are funded by the same people who fund the pharma industry, antifa, BLM, LGBTQ, etc…. Wake up while you can. Read the Bible and take it for what it is. It’s truth. It tells us the past, and it tells us the future. And quite frankly, it’s a grim future. But you should be able to see that even as an unbeliever when you look humanity today and mental state of most. Things are gonna get worse. Our DNA is deteriorating, that’s not evolution is it? But it does explain the fallen state of the world. It started with sin.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29835346
United States
02/11/2024 11:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
I screwed up my last reply lol. Idk why it didn’t quote your response…
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29835346
United States
02/11/2024 11:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places



Here give this a go if you have the time. I’m not much of anything for getting my point across. It’s not my gift to argue well lol. Atleast hear this guy out. He will give you the main points for research. I’ve done so much research prior to ever seeing this video a while back, I’m not new to this idea by any means. Honestly creation is what opened my eyes to the reality that God is who he says he is. It starts there. Atleast it did for me. This video is worth your time if the video you posted was worth your time.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29835346
United States
02/11/2024 11:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
It’s not reliable. Creationists sent lava samples from a volcanic eruption in the 1960s (specimen sent to several labs across the nation in the 1970s) and the samples were aged variously between 20,000 and 200,000 years old. They trolled em good on that one lol. Do you understand how carbon dating is performed?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29835346

Creationists have been caught sending fake samples to labs.

Assumptions don't produce predictable results.

Please post a citation for your claim. I have not heard that one maybe you are referencing Mt. St. Helens?

Wood from Pompeii was carbon dating and it came back to 79 C.E. or very close which is the correct date.

They use carbon dating in the Middle East and working out when places were occupied are those wrong as well?
 Quoting: TexasPaleo


If someone sent fake samples, they aren’t true Christian’s, they aren’t true creationists. We have to be mindful and discerning about false witnesses from every background including those who claim to come in the name of Jesus. Don’t believe all Christians are that way though. We aren’t.
GravyForTheBrian

User ID: 86841933
United States
02/11/2024 11:32 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
Video by Dr. Joel Duff. 54 minutes.


1677
 Quoting: TexasPaleo


Actually, the sedimentary and fossil record is the best evidence for the Deluge, as explained here:

"The sedimentary record demonstrates that there was a worldwide cataclysmic flood.

For starters, we find marine fossils on the tops of every mountain worldwide. Take Mt. Everest. When Sir Edmund Hillary reached the 26,000 ft level he stuck his pick into the ground to pull himself up and noticed sea shells. In fact, there are thousands of sea shells on Everest from 26,000 ft all the way to the summit. These shells were found petrified in the closed position (when a clam dies it opens) meaning that they all died while still alive in a cataclysmic event.

Secondly, 75% of the Earth's crust is sedimentary rock laid down by water in which we find sedimentary rock and graveyard fossils worldwide. In these worldwide fossil graveyards we find the bones of all kinds of animals compressed together layer upon layer demonstrating that there was indeed a worldwide cataclysmic flood. Animals that should not even be found together were found all together in these massive graveyard layers.

Then you have the evidence from coal beds and oil deposits. Some strip mines have coal seams up to 200 feet thick. It takes 3 meters of vegetation to make 1 foot of coal, so these 200ft seams would require 1800 feet of vegetation, quickly covered by mud, to form them. And that is just one seam! This implies a massive cataclysm." Thread: The Grand Canyon was formed not over "long earth ages" but rather during the rapidly receding waters of the Deluge
Camelot died behind the Stemmons Sign
TexasPaleo  (OP)

User ID: 86575420
United States
02/12/2024 12:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
For starters, we find marine fossils on the tops of every mountain worldwide. Take Mt. Everest. When Sir Edmund Hillary reached the 26,000 ft level he stuck his pick into the ground to pull himself up and noticed sea shells. In fact, there are thousands of sea shells on Everest from 26,000 ft all the way to the summit. These shells were found petrified in the closed position (when a clam dies it opens) meaning that they all died while still alive in a cataclysmic event.
 Quoting: GravyForTheBrian

Mountains are made of layers that have been pushed up through Continental plates hitting each other and pushing up thousands of feet above sea level. The layers have fossils because those layers were ONCE layers that existed at the bottom of the ocean but have since been pushed up. A Global Flood would not dumps oysters on the top of mountains anyways that's just dumb. Whatever fossils he found were no doubt species from very old layers (deep in the Geologic Column) not modern species.

Secondly, 75% of the Earth's crust is sedimentary rock laid down by water in which we find sedimentary rock and graveyard fossils worldwide.
 Quoting: GravyForTheBrian

What you see anywhere in the Geologic Column are alterations of multiple kinds of marine and terrestrial layers that absolutely can not be produced in a chaotic flood. You can't get regular alterations of laminated shales, terrestrial sandstones, fluvial sandstones, marls, mud-stones, clay-stones, bio-turbated layers, glaucontic layers, chalks and so on deposited by a single event. These all represent distinct environments. Actually NONE of these can be deposited by a giant flood. Any geology student can explain this. You can go outside to roadcuts and exposures and validate this yourself.


In these worldwide fossil graveyards we find the bones of all kinds of animals compressed together layer upon layer demonstrating that there was indeed a worldwide cataclysmic flood. Animals that should not even be found together were found all together in these massive graveyard layers.
 Quoting: GravyForTheBrian

We have a few dino graveyards because dinos migrated and they got caught up in spring floods crossing rivers. We see this where too many wildebeest try to cross a swollen river and in the chaos alot die and pile up on sand bars. Dinsaurs lived near water just like modern large animals.

Not sure what "should not even be found together" means. We see various animals in ancient lake deposits.

We have a dinosaur "graveyard" here in north Texas and it's because in the Cretaceous (c. 96 mya) there existed a braided river system that dumped in the Western Interior Seaway. They find hadrosaurs, dromaeosaurs, ankylosaurs and fresh water Coelacanths and the layer it is in (the terrestrial Woodbine Formation) is bounded above and below by hundreds of feet of strict shallow marine shales and limestone because sea levels were highly variable in this period. Oh, and the layers LATERAL to the Woodbine Formation are not braided river or marine they are terrestrial sandstone with extensive cross-bedding.

So, we have terrestrial layers with terrestrial animals somehow sandwiched between marine layers which is impossible if it's all supposed to have been a mile or more under saltwater.

Then you have the evidence from coal beds and oil deposits. Some strip mines have coal seams up to 200 feet thick. It takes 3 meters of vegetation to make 1 foot of coal, so these 200ft seams would require 1800 feet of vegetation, quickly covered by mud, to form them. And that is just one seam! This implies a massive cataclysm."
 Quoting: GravyForTheBrian

No, it's implies long time with static environments. This type of deposition PRECLUDES a flood origin.

Dapper Dinosaur points out in Texas (I recall) there is literally a mountain made of coral which would have taken vastly longer than the YEC 6,000 year to form because coral forms incredibly slow. Also that coral would have not have formed in a flood because corals only live in calm warm clear water. So, there is literally a mountain of evidence disproving the Flood.

Actually, Geology disproves the Flood in every possible way.

Last Edited by TexasPaleo on 02/12/2024 12:29 AM
Anonymous
User ID: 86466890
United States
02/12/2024 12:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
The earth has so many evidences of major global flood. “Carbon dating” is based on fallacies. But hey, it makes more sense that over billions of years, those sea shells moved up with the ground as mountains formed… We all came from nothing. My earliest ancestor was a rock? Lmao. Your religion of evolution is a comical joke at best….
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29835346


I agree

clappa
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 85994442
United States
02/12/2024 12:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
The earth has so many evidences of major global flood. “Carbon dating” is based on fallacies. But hey, it makes more sense that over billions of years, those sea shells moved up with the ground as mountains formed… We all came from nothing. My earliest ancestor was a rock? Lmao. Your religion of evolution is a comical joke at best….
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29835346


I agree

clappa
 Quoting: Anonymous 86466890


According to evolutionists, we're all related to broccoli.
TexasPaleo  (OP)

User ID: 86575420
United States
02/12/2024 12:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
The earth has so many evidences of major global flood. “Carbon dating” is based on fallacies. But hey, it makes more sense that over billions of years, those sea shells moved up with the ground as mountains formed… We all came from nothing. My earliest ancestor was a rock? Lmao. Your religion of evolution is a comical joke at best….
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29835346

What fallacy? That terrestrial plants and animals don't take up unstable Carbon 14 and that after death that resident carbon 14 decays to the stable form carbon 12 at a known decay rate and that measuring the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 and factoring the decay rate it can be used to estimate how long an animal has been dead??

Please explain the fallacy. Maybe you know more about atomic physics than the people that design the equipment and do the tests?

Last Edited by TexasPaleo on 02/12/2024 12:22 AM
GravyForTheBrian

User ID: 86841933
United States
02/12/2024 12:27 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
"The existence of billions of fossils all over the Earth points to a unique, global, watery catastrophe, because fossilization is a rare occurrence and we do not find anything forming today that compares with the fossil graveyards of the past where thousands of marine and land-dwelling creatures were drowned and buried together.

All over the Earth, we find billions of marine creatures buried together. For example, according to Dr. Andrew A. Snelling:

'...billions of straight-shelled, chambered nautiloids are found fossilized with other marine creatures in a 7 foot (2 m) thick layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This fossil graveyard stretches for 180 miles (290 km) across northern Arizona and into southern Nevada, covering an area of at least 10,500 square miles (30,000 km2).'

No geological event in the recorded history of the last four thousand years could even begin to explain how these kinds of animal graveyards were made...The fact that we find billions and billions of beautifully preserved remains of marine creatures mixed with the remains of land creatures tells us that some unique event was responsible for the preservation of fossils on this scale.

The sedimentary rock layers exposed in the walls of Grand Canyon belong to six megasequences that can be traced across North America. At the base of these layers are huge boulders and sand beds that are evidences of sediments being laid down rapidly across the entire USA.

The chalk beds of southern England can be traced across France, Germany, and Poland, all the way to the Middle East. What kind of geological phenomenon observed in recent times could lay down water-borne sediments over three continents!

Coal beds offer another example of massive deposition of sediments over multiple continents. Dr. Andrew A. Snelling explains:

'In the northern hemisphere, the Upper Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) coal beds of the eastern and Midwest USA are the same coal beds, with the same plant fossils, as those in Britain and Europe. They stretch halfway around the globe, from Texas to the Donetz Basin north of the Caspian Sea in the former USSR.'

It is important to note that, according to Dr. Andrew A. Snelling,

'At the boundaries between some sedimentary layers we find evidence of only rapid erosion.'

This strongly indicates that the sediments that hardened into these layers must have been laid down rapidly and almost simultaneously.

All over the world one can find polystrate fossils which cut through multiple layers of sedimentary rock, layers which, according to the conventional evolutionary time-scale, were deposited over tens or hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years. The existence of polystrate fossils testifies to the rapid and catastrophic deposition of sediments and contradicts the Lyellian understanding of sedimentary deposition.

In recent decades sedimentologists who study the way that sediments are laid down in nature to form sedimentary rocks have built huge laboratories where they can do empirical research in their field. This research has revealed that Lyell and his disciples failed to take adequate account of the role played by moving currents of water in the deposition of sediments.

In sedimentological laboratories, scientists have discovered that sediments are deposited by moving currents of water very differently from the way that Lyell and his disciples imagined. Instead of slow and gradual vertical deposition of sediment, moving currents of water deposit water-borne sediments laterally and vertically at the same time, according to their physical characteristics.

In recent years, geologists have reinterpreted several huge sedimentary rock formations in light of empirical research in sedimentology, including the Tonto Group, a large section of the Grand Canyon depicted below. According to a peer-reviewed article published in the journal of the French Geological Society, careful analysis of the sediments that make up this formation indicate that the whole deposit was laid down rapidly—in a matter of days or weeks, not millions of years—by an enormous body of water moving from east to west across what is now the Southwestern United States.

Another common observation consistent with the historical reality of the Global Flood is the beautiful sharp folding of multiple sedimentary layers within uplifted and folded mountain ranges which can be witnessed all over the Earth. If these layers had been laid down over millions of years, there ought to be some evidence of cracking and fracturing of the more ancient layers during the folding and uplifting of the mountains. Instead, all over the Earth, one observes multiple layers of sedimentary rock, folded in beautiful tight folds, without any fracturing—a clear indication that all of the sediments were laid down rapidly at more or less the same time, and that there were no long intervals of time between them.

These features of the Earth go hand in hand with other features that characterize enormous areas of the Earth’s surface: water gaps, over-sized valleys, and planation surfaces.

Water gaps and over-sized river valleys constitute two other world-wide geological phenomena that testify to a recent global Flood. Water gaps can be found all over the surface of the Earth.

Flood geologists interpret these gaps as relicts of channelized flow that occurred as waters receded from a worldwide inundation...Conventional geologists have proposed various solutions to the problem such as antecedent streams or headward erosion, but none of these processes are currently observed, and most geologists admit that water gaps are difficult to explain in terms of presently observed natural processes.

A related feature of river valleys all over the world is their enormous size relative to the size of the rivers that flow through them. According to geologist Steve Austin,

'Studies by G.H. Dury on modern stream channels and river valleys prove that many are too large for the streams that they contain. He argues that most modern streams at some point on their channel are "underfit." Dury speaks of the "continent-wide distribution of underfit streams." Using channel meander characteristics, Dury concludes that streams frequently had 20 to 60 times their present discharge.'

The same geological forces that produced enormous sedimentary deposits extending from one continent to another also left behind enormous planation surfaces as Flood waters receded from the continents and flowed into the ocean basins. For example, almost two-thirds of the entire land surface of the African continent is a planation surface, sheared off by the receding waters of the Flood as they flowed into the oceans. No geological event since the Flood has come close to producing the kinds of effects that can still be observed all over the Earth as a consequence of that unique global cataclysm." [link to kolbecenter.org (secure)]

Last Edited by GravyForTheBrian on 02/12/2024 12:27 AM
Camelot died behind the Stemmons Sign
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 86842224
United States
02/12/2024 12:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
TexasPaleo,

Who do you say that Jesus Christ is?
TexasPaleo  (OP)

User ID: 86575420
United States
02/12/2024 12:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
Once you copy/paste from a Creationist propaganda site you have no argument.

Present one thing at time not a wall of text.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 50175996
United States
02/12/2024 12:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
The earth has so many evidences of major global flood. “Carbon dating” is based on fallacies. But hey, it makes more sense that over billions of years, those sea shells moved up with the ground as mountains formed… We all came from nothing. My earliest ancestor was a rock? Lmao. Your religion of evolution is a comical joke at best….
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29835346


Watch the video you might learn something which is better than being ignorant.

Joel Duff is a Christian by the way.
 Quoting: TexasPaleo


If you don’t believe the Bible, you’re not much of a Christian. I’ve spent more hours than necessary for one person studying creation from a biblical perspective. Genesis clearly lays out the foundations of creation, how it happened, and when. It’s not open for yours or anyone else’s interpretation. If you’re claiming to be a Christian and arguing the earth is billions of years old, you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Pretty simple. Carbon dating is subjective at best. That’s all there is to it. Nice try though pal.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29835346


Why does it always come down to judgements with religion? Nobody can ever prove anything and it keeps them divided and fighting each other.... it's actually a perfect way to enslave a species of lower intelligence
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 86842224
United States
02/12/2024 12:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
Fossilization, the creation of fossils, requires very specific and rare circumstances.

The critters need to be killed quickly and then buried quickly and then buried much more for the pressure to compress them and keep them in place.

We find fossils throughout the world.

Only a most massive and unprecedented worldwide flood could account for the uniformity of the fossil record around the world.

The Flood of Noah killed the critters and created the fossils.

The Bible is True.

.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 86842224
United States
02/12/2024 12:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
There's a place up in Montana, it happens to be called Hell Creek, where they have found and dig up a lot of fossils, particularly many T-Rex fossils, and some of the excavators have reported that it smelled like death there while digging...

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

"Once, when she was working with a T. rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor. "It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died," she says. Given the conventional wisdom that such fossils were made up entirely of minerals, Schweitzer was anxious when mentioning this to Horner. "But he said, 'Oh, yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell,'" she says. To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn't even register. To Schweitzer, it meant that traces of life might still cling to those bones."

[link to skeptics.stackexchange.com (secure)]


In one and now some of these fossils they were digging that smelled like cadavers, they happened to discover soft tissue remaining in the bones.

Soft tissue..

Dinosaur soft tissue...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76322957
United States
02/12/2024 12:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
The fact that evolution is a pathetically week theory with actually zero real evidence does not mean that the Bible is correct.

In the beginning??? LOL.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 86842224
United States
02/12/2024 12:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery

When this shy paleontologist found soft, fresh-looking tissue inside a T. rex femur, she erased a line between past and present. Then all hell broke loose.

Ever since Mary Higby Schweitzer peeked inside the fractured thighbone of a Tyrannosaurus rex, the introverted scientist's life hasn't been the same. Neither has the field of paleontology.

...Schweitzer gazed through a microscope in her laboratory at North Carolina State University and saw lifelike tissue that had no business inhabiting a fossilized dinosaur skeleton: fibrous matrix, stretchy like a wet scab on human skin; what appeared to be supple bone cells, their three-dimensional shapes intact; and translucent blood vessels that looked as if they could have come straight from an ostrich at the zoo.

By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. But Schweitzer tends to ignore such dogma. She just looks and wonders, pokes and prods, following her scientific curiosity. That has allowed her to see things other paleontologists have missed—and potentially to shatter fundamental assumptions about how much we can learn from the past.

[link to discovermagazine.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 86842224
United States
02/12/2024 12:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: A Young Earth? The Fossils Say No! Too many fossils in all the wrong places
Why did the Jurassic Park scientist refuse to do a scientific dating test to get scientific results in a real science examination?
All related testing expenses covered, and still he refuses to scientifically test the samples.
This is today's "Science" from "the Scientists".
Who would dare deny them?
Listen for yourself:






GLP