Posted on 03/05/2006 10:14:04 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
25 million years. [Shakes head]
A few days ago, Fester and I were discussing why there are no fish, nor for that matter, no vertebrates, in the Burgess shale. (and none has ever been found in any rock older that the upper Cambrian)
No fish. No teeth, no scales, no bones, nothing.
You forgot the Evolution Creation Myth.
There are things the fossil record tells us which beg for answers. YEC theories disdain to address them except by trying to knock down the existence of the questions.
I'll solve the Evolution Vs Creation debate right here and now.
Some of you would argue that Bill Clinton descended from an Ape..
Some would say that John Kerry descended also from some sort of lower life form.
Some will agree that Kennedy likewise had ancestors that crawled out of Pond Scum.
But I defy any of you to say that GW Bush or Ronald Reagan descended from Apes ;).
You are assuming that the rest of us cannot read, have not read, or are somehow deficient in reasoning ability. Your egotism is boundless.
There are thousands of religions, but only one creation to be studied. It is written in no human language, has no bias against people who are born at the wrong time or place, plays no favorites.
You keep saying this but you never connect the dots. What is your point?
Science does not accumulate knowledge by deductive logic. Science is imaginative, creative, and inventive. At best, deduction plays a role in editing and cleaning up defective ideas. It does not create those ideas.
"where are the pre-flood advanced life forms including humans?"
I reject the premise of your question. Trilobites were advanced. They had eyes, which means a highly developed nervous system. They matured by molting, which is a highly complex mechanism.
As for humans and other "complex mammals", they would be more likely to find higher ground, cling to debris, etc., which would have left their bodies open to exposure and decay instead of fossilization. In addition, the human population at the time of the flood is estimated to be small enough that it would be unlikely to ever find a human fossil even if all humans at that time were fossilized. Most humans and complex mammals are found in post-flood sediments. However, human artifacts have been found in much lower strata.
"How did the dinosaurs arise AND vanish entirely during the flood?"
They didn't arise _during_ the flood. They arose before it. They also didn't die out in the flood. While they have mostly died out by now, history is replete with encounters with dinosaurs. Pteradactyls were a fairly common sighting in Europe up until about 2 centuries ago. John of Damascus wrote about the biology of dinosaurs as well as an encounter with them that the Roman army had (I don't know all of the details as I don't read Latin, and there is no translation available). There are a few Saurapod dinosaurs presumed to be alive today in some parts of the Congo. They wouldn't be the first species presumed to be dead for tens or hundreds of millions of years that turned up alive somewhere.
"How did the birds and mammals apparently arise and change considerably in appearance during the flood itself?"
I'm not very familiar with birds, but mammals are mostly absent from flood sediments, except for small mammals. Post-flood, creationists are in general agreement with the changes postulated by evolutionists. Creationists actually think that change occurs faster than evolutionists. However, the change is limitted according to the semantics of the animal's plan (both genetic and epigenetic). Therefore, it can go longer distances in a single bound, but it has stricter boundaries than those presumed by evolutionists.
However, a lot of the documented changes by evolutionists are done by a selective analysis of the evidence. This is especially true in human ancestry analysis. For a discussion of this, see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i2/fossils.asp
A summary view of all this can be found here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp
It is true that there are many unanswered questions, but that is entirely the point of the creationist scientific persuit.
I hear it just fine. It tells me you are wrong.
I am not using "advanced" in the sense of "multicellular" or even "vertebrate." You are advancing a model in which various life forms including humans and birds (see the Book of Genesis for a more complete list) existed for a thousand years before the flood and suffered most of their numbers to be destroyed in the flood, whose sediments are somehow mistaken to for the residues of about half a billion years of Earth's geology but are actually the result of one flood in one year. At one point a few posts ago, I got that wrong and said the flood starts at the P-T boundary, but that's not your claim. You have the flood starting at the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary which is even earlier and sillier.
Your model clearly predicts pre-flood humans. But there aren't even any pre-flood rabbits. I predicted your behavior on this point when I mentioned that YECs answer the questions they can't answer by pretending there is no such question.
You are peddling an inferior product here. There is no need to ignore away questions for which we already have answers that make sense.
As for humans and other "complex mammals", they would be more likely to find higher ground, cling to debris, etc., which would have left their bodies open to exposure and decay instead of fossilization.
Nobody got buried even after the entire Earth was covered? Where exactly was this higher ground? Your answer is downright heretical. Yer prolly goin' ta hay-ull fer thet, bo-ah!
You are ignoring the actual content of the fossil record in every matter. The fossil record shows dinosaurs arising in the Triassic, evolving a rather different set of forms by the Jurassic, evolving another set of forms by the late Cretaceous, and nothing but their descendant birds after the K-T boundary. There are any number of distinct layers which should not be there in a one year flood, any number of appearances and extinctions which should not be there in a one-year flood.
Former YEC (and oil geologist) Glenn R. Morton has analyzed problems with flood geology. I'll give a little sample here.
Too many fossils for one flood.
Then there's this detailed list by Ken Harding. Lots of items in that one.
Have a ball.
That is certainly the case with evolution!
You aren't very bright, are you?
You consider it an insult to be creative and inventive? You fancy yourself a philosopher, and you think original scientific ideas are not the result of creativity, invention and imagination?
There is evolution, but evolution does not address creation.
Evolution means change after creation.
So, there is no such thing as "the Evoution Creation Myth."
I found it ironic that you would associate a word like 'creative' with evolution. I also find it ironic that evolutionists claim factual support for evolution, yet you used the words 'inventive' and 'imaginative'.
I certainly agree that it takes quite an imagination to believe in evolution and one needs to 'invent' new excuses when the facts reveal serious problems with evolution.
I find it amusing that you don't understand this conversation.
Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak
Then there is also:
How Old is the Earth? A Response to “Scientific” Creationism, by G. Brent Dalrymple.
In my research in the western US, my colleagues and I have a good sequence of occupation for 10,000 years or more, with no evidence of a global flood. We are studying soils, not rocks and fossils, yet all of the creation sites concentrate on the fossils.
I can hardly wait to see how folks try to explain away 10,000+ years of continuous occupation of the western US, with the evidence easily read in the soils, and no evidence of the disruptions which had to occur if there was a global flood.
The time scale was independently confirmed and quantified by radiometric dating.And how does that happen? Creationists screech about every error that was ever made using radiometric dating. Their bottom line is that dates derived from such means don't mean anything and are of no use.
But they clearly do mean something and are very, very useful. They tell a coherent picture and it matches the one told by paleontology and stratigraphy.
Why should that be?
The above is your answer. Below is the problem.
Where are the humans? Where are the lizards? Where are the amphibians? Are they clinging to wreckage?
WHERE ARE THE FISH?
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.