Images cited in ICR article.
Posted on 06/20/2013 6:51:51 AM PDT by fishtank
Images cited in ICR article.
Could be the work of a tidal wave that swept them all into one grave.
More pseudoscience from the Institute of Creative Imagination.
Some creation geologists suggest
<><><><>
What is a creation geologist?
Evolution raises it’s heretical head ... again!
Noah tossed him off the ark for disobeying the "no horseplay" rule.
Good argument for these fossils coming from a catastrophe but not necessarily an argument that ALL fossils come from a catastrophe. It is troubling that science avoids catastrophic causes for past processes when even by my short time on earth that large sudden events do occur and have major impacts on environment.
From DARWIN'S GHOST by Steve Jones ... page 202.
"Human remains in peat bogs retain the hair, clothes and pained expressions of their original owners. As the flesh was tanned by acids in the soil, the bones were dissolved to leave mere bags of skin. Animals can topple into lakes of pitch as the La Brea Tar Pits of Los Angeles or stick to tree gum that turns into amber. All the household means against decay -- deep frozen mammoths, Spanish wooly rhinos marinated in a salty swamp, ground sloths in south American caves reduced to beef jerky by slow evaporation -- help to conserve these Mona Lisas of the fossil record."
Couldn’t possibly have been buried there due to a catastrophic worldwide flood. Must have run there “trying to escape a predator”.
If you leave a corpse of any living thing out for “gradual processes” to affect, it just rots, it doesn’t fossilize.
It would have to be suddenly buried under great amounts of pressure. A catastrophe.
Based on the location in modern day Wyoming, this may coincide with one of Yellowstone’s past super volcano eruptions. The next one will include human remains with cameras strapped to their necks. “Oh look honey, Old Faithful!”
More pseudoscience from the Institute of Creative Imagination.
Did you even read the article? The author presents a very good argument that given the blend of animals and the setting in which they were found it’s extremely unlikely that they were fossilized the way that secular psuedoscientists postulate. He then concludes that the Bible presents a very feasible explanation that matches very well with the evidence presented in this book.
What’s your guess as to how these fossils were made?
My understanding is different scientists believe that the bible is true and if its true it will lead them to discoveries about our world. I used to follow some of the biblical archaeology scientists/researchers and they claim making discoveries of ancient buildings based on using the bible where others have discounted its value as a source.
I trust that the scientific method will endure faulty approaches from creationists. I also trust the bible will always stand as being true.
God does not change. His creation is His work and does not change by man's ignorance. Only man's understanding of God's creation changes.
Interesting. A localized worldwide flood.
Catastrophe on a global scale is acceptable to geologists only if it doesn’t involve water....Asteroids, volcanoes, earthquakes, any and all but under no circumstances is a global inundation to be mentioned unless to it is to mock the idea.
Another quote from Darwin's Ghost ...
"The creationist movement is part of a triumphal New Ignorance the rules in many places, the United States more than most."
It depends on how you want to define catastrophe. Fore example, a 500 year flood or massive landslide may be locally catastrophic, but events that take place on anything greater than a regional level are extremely rare. As far as “major impacts on the environment”, disturbance is what guides many processes, and while they may effect subpopulations or small regions, organisms and geomorphology are much more subject to long-term gradual change.
He's a bit past his "freshness date", but he looks pretty spry for being over 2,000 years old.
I’m not attempting to define catastrophe. I am observing that most attempts at describing past events seem to be biased toward gradual changes over time (with an exception for Niagra falls).
A similar bias I observe is attributing ancient pieces of art such as pottery as being created for religious purposes. Our observations of current human behavior (pet rocks is one example) is we humans sometimes create stuff “just because its fun”.
Another bias is the assumption that ancient peoples were ignorant about all things compared to us today. My experience is that based on writings by various sources leads me to believe we are less intellectual than our ancestors. For example, the Hebrew language and biblical stories was originally understood to have multiple meanings and messages even down to each word. For us we are only able to absorb one level of meaning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.