New Fossil Book Won't Showcase Obvious Catastrophe (article)

Institute for Creation Research ^ | June 17, 2013 | Brian Thomas

[USS Johnston]

how a worldwide flood managed to miss leaving this same kind of evidence everywhere else.,...”

Well, isn't there evidence of sea shells on Mount Everest? It COULD be "everywhere", but how much of the planet have we unearthed?

The theory of 'Catastrophism' (aka The Great Flood) is the relatively quick and obviously dramatic re-creation and total re-alignment of planet earth which entombed much of the planet's former life as...fossils, shell, and bone. Thus far, quite a bit of the "million year old" bones and fossils are found to have been swept and clumped together in the same strata.

[USS Johnston]

Ever seen the Bonneville Salt Flats? How did all that hot, turbulent water manage to not dissolve all that salt and take it back out to see when the flood waters receeded?

No, never seen it, but I heard it's awesome.

I reckon some areas of the planet didn't drain into the sea as quickly as others. We know there were post-flood seas in Canada that did wind up draining -- perhaps back into the ground where much of the Flood water is said to have originated Moreover, who knows whether that water temp was so "hot"? And for how long?

[tacticalogic]

Moreover, who knows whether that water temp was so "hot"? And for how long?

All the theories about fossilization and "hydrologic sorting" of the bones to explain their appearance post-flood posit very hot and very turbulent water conditions. The amount of water required to hold the amount of salt left behind at Bonneville would require a water column that could not possibly be contained by the surrounding geography.

[tacticalogic]

Well, isn't there evidence of sea shells on Mount Everest?

Yes, but where are the fossils of horses mixed in with them on Mount Everest?

[USS Johnston]

Been there. They posit some mysterious force being responsible for increased decay rates of uranium during the flood. The amount of heat released by compressing an apparent 4.5 billion years of decay into one year would produce enough heat to vaporize the Earth’s crust, but they never explain what happened to all that heat, or identify this mysterious force.

The "mysterious forces" were the change in degree of radiation admitted onto the planet, dramatic climate change, the eradication of earth's original topography, geography, and mineral content change, earth's change in magnetic forces, and change in gravitational forces. It's proven that ferns grew at the poles and sea shells wound up on the top of Everest. The entire planet became another different planet -- calamitous, but hardly "mysterious."

[USS Johnston]

Yes, but where are the fossils of horses mixed in with them on Mount Everest?

Or dinosaurs? /s

Sorry -- the un-uniformity of fossil locations and finds does not prove any point.

[tacticalogic]

The "mysterious forces" were the change in degree of radiation admitted onto the planet, dramatic climate change, the eradication of earth's original topography, geography, and mineral content change, earth's change in magnetic forces, and change in gravitational forces. It's proven that ferns grew at the poles and sea shells wound up on the top of Everest. The entire planet became another different planet -- calamitous, but hardly "mysterious."

All of those conditions can be re-created in a lab, and no one has ever been able to demonstrate the kind of decay rates they claim.

[USS Johnston]

The amount of water required to hold the amount of salt left behind at Bonneville would require a water column that could not possibly be contained by the surrounding geography.

Is it possible the local surrounding geography at Bonneville was still undergoing a relatively late change? How do we know what geography was still in the precess of sinking or rising?

We don't know all the dynamics of the preservation of fossilization, obviously -- but they sure ain't 60 million year old bones as "science" has sworn. Or even 1 million year old bones.

[tacticalogic]

Sorry -- the un-uniformity of fossil locations and finds does not prove any point.

The posted article claims it does. That all these fossils were found at the same location proves the account of the Great Flood is the entire premise of the article.

[little jeremiah]

Many “creationists” are not “young earth” ones.

I have no idea of the proportions.

But there are many in related geology/biology professions who are not evolutionists but are not young earth believers.

Evos love to pretend that all people who are believe “God did it” are young earthers. Makes them sleep easier at night.

[USS Johnston]

All of those conditions can be re-created in a lab, and no one has ever been able to demonstrate the kind of decay rates they claim.

So...You're claiming 'science' can recreate the exact external and internal planetory conditions and atmospheric brew of the Great Flood? IN A LAB?? The decay rates are based on several unknown X factors. Thus it's impossible.

[tacticalogic]

there are many fossil beds (mass graves) around.

They're claiming that this one fossil bed is being overlooked because the evidence there proves the account of the Great Flood. If there are many and this all happened at the same time, produced by the same event then there should be many more like this one, with the same kind of distribution of marine and land fossils all mixed together. Where are they?

[little jeremiah]

The scientific community is as corrupt as the politicians. Too much at stake (grant money, careers) to investigate anything but "established science" and if anyone dares to bring up anomalies, they come up with lame "the horse drowned" scenarios and go out of their way to destroy the heretics.

Needs to be repeated and understood.

[tacticalogic]

So...You're claiming 'science' can recreate the exact external and internal planetory conditions and atmospheric brew of the Great Flood? IN A LAB?? The decay rates are based on several unknown X factors. Thus it's impossible.

Aren't you claiming to know that some specific combination of those produced a predictable change in the decay rates of those radioisotopes? You just told me it did. If none of these conditions you describe can be recreated, on what basis to you submit they produced the results you claim?

[USS Johnston]

The posted article claims it does. That all these fossils were found at the same location proves the account of the Great Flood is the entire premise of the article.

There are off-shoot theories that deviate in some respects.

MANY fossils and dinosaur bones are indeed found clumped together. that is the one that have been stumbled upon.

In no way do the affects of the Great Flood upon fossils, strata, and their coincidental discoveries within strata (instead of embedded in granite) discredit the main gist.

If I were to pick apart the farce of Evolutionism and its theory of "Uniformitariarism" aka "Gradualism," it'd only take a few days to totally discredit its entire theory (and it is JUST a theory which is regarded as less gospel in the scientific community with each and every passing day.)

[tacticalogic]

If I were to pick apart the farce of Evolutionism and its theory of "Uniformitariarism" aka "Gradualism," it'd only take a few days to totally discredit its entire theory (and it is JUST a theory which is regarded as less gospel in the scientific community with each and every passing day.)

If you could do that and settle this whole matter once and for all, why haven't you done it?

[USS Johnston]

Aren't you claiming to know that some specific combination of those produced a predictable change in the decay rates of those radioisotopes? If none of these conditions you describe can be recreated, on what basis to you submit they produced the results you claim?

So if a condition can't be recreated in a lab, it doesn't not nor couldn't have existed? You can't be serious.

When "science" re-creates the X-factor degree of changed radiation/radioisotope levels of pre-flood and post-flood; re-creates the dramatic climate change, earth's ubiquitous and unknown volcanic residue, considers the eradication of earth's original topography, geography, and mineral content change, re-creates earth's un-measurable change in magnetic forces, and un-measurable change in gravitational forces, get back to me.

[USS Johnston]

If you could do that and settle this whole matter once and for all, why haven't you done it?

I haven't a few more hours to spare.

;-)

[kimtom]

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).

Hundreds of thousands of marine creatures were buried with amphibians, spiders, scorpions, millipedes, insects, and reptiles in a fossil graveyard at Montceau-les-Mines, France.

At Florissant, Colorado, a wide variety of insects, freshwater mollusks, fish, birds, and several hundred plant species (including nuts and blossoms) are buried together.4 Bees and birds have to be buried rapidly in order to be so well preserved.

Alligator, fish (including sunfish, deep sea bass, chubs, pickerel, herring, and garpike 3–7 feet [1–2 m] long), birds, turtles, mammals, mollusks, crustaceans, many varieties of insects, and palm leaves (7–9 feet [2–2.5 m] long) were buried together in the vast Green River Formation of Wyoming.

At Fossil Bluff on the north coast of Australia’s island state of Tasmania, many thousands of marine creatures (corals, bryozoans [lace corals], bivalves [clams], and gastropods [snails]) were buried together in a broken state, along with a toothed whale and a marsupial possum. Whales and possums don’t live together, so only a watery catastrophe would have buried them together.

In order for such large ammonites and other marine creatures to be buried in the chalk beds of Britain many trillions of microscopic marine creatures had to bury them catastrophically.

credit: AIG

[tacticalogic]

So if a condition can't be recreated in a lab, it doesn't not nor couldn't have existed? You can't be serious.

You're the one who stated unequivocally that combination of conditions came to be and produced that result. When you make the claim it becomes your responsibility to provide the evidence that it did happen, not everyone else's to prove that it didn't. That's the way science works.

I'll repeat a question I posed earlier - how many other possible theories are there that can be submitted on noting more that a claim that "it could happen", and how fast would you produce absolute gridlock if all of them had to be given equal consideration?