Posted on 03/17/2009 8:36:04 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
Flood Evidence Number Six
by Andrew A. Snelling
March 15, 2009
How could a series of sedimentary layers fold without fracturing? The only way is for all the sedimentary layers to be laid down in rapid succession and then be folded while still soft and pliable.
If the global Flood, as described in Genesis 7–8, really occurred, what evidence would we expect to find? Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth that are filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were rapidly buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime? Yes, and that’s exactly what we find...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
There was a 100% death rate for terrestrial life during the Flood. But so long as there was even a 0.01% (or whatever) survival rate among sea life, the sea life would not have needed to go on the ark. There would have been sufficient survivors to re-establish their populations after things settled down. As a practical matter I expect that the vast majority of aquatic life did die in the Kataklusmos. (To use the Greek NT term for this event.)
I notice the evolutionists here have once again failed to respond to the article in question.
Well then wouldn't you also expect to find fossilized horses, cows, dogs, sheep, camels, and all the other modern forms of animal life that Noah cou;dn't take on the ark at that same layer? Not to mention fossils of all the people who were not left on the ark? How's that going?
See #10.
Do you have any documentation on that? I have the opposite impression. And there is a bias against assigning fossils to currently living species since it emphasizes the lack of change observed in many cases. Instead I've noticed that paleontologists say a given fossil is "very similar" to a modern species. Yet they refuse to just assign it to the same species and be done with it.
If evolution were true than only a tiny percentage of fossils found should be of current species, yet the numbers I've seen in general are that there is a very high degree of overlap between living species and the fossil record, and that most differences between fossils and living species are very minor. Certainly it fits better with a polyphyletic model on a young earth than old-earth models.
But if fossiliferous rock is almost entirely the result of the Biblical flood then it should contain fossils of modern animals as well as fossils of people along with the fossils of dinosaurs and the rest. So where are they?
From http://trueorigin.org/ca_as_01.asp
Andrew Snelling answers Alex Ritchie (a response by Dr. Andrew Snelling of critcism posted on the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry [CARM] bulletin board by Dr. Alex Ritchie) © 1998 Dr. Andrew Snelling. All Rights Reserved.
I have never hidden my allegiances or beliefs. For example, when I left the employment of mining companies in 1983 I made it perfectly clear where I was going, what I believed and what I was doing. I also told other research scientists that I was working with, and even offered to be a silent partner in the research work if my involvement embarrassed them or compromised them in any way. None of them in any way backed off, respecting me and the position I'd taken even if they didn't agree.
When I came to write the paper on the Koongarra uranium deposit, it was at the request of the mining company who knew exactly where I stood. The paper was for a book on Australian ore deposits with an editor who had strict guidelines as to how the papers should be written. When I wrote the paper I had no option but to take the standard conventional terminology, and what all the critics have overlooked is that I fully reference all the comments that they are slamming me with. In other words, as far as I was concerned I was making it perfectly clear that this is what everyone else believes, and what is the standard wisdom about this ore deposit and its geological setting. It so happens that the editor of the volume when he did the work was still in the employ of one of the mining companies that I had worked for that knew my position, so nothing was hidden from the public in any way.
The problem is that these hard-line evolutionists are so blinkered that they can't see how a person like myself in such a situation is forced to use their evolutionary terminology whether we like it or not. In other words, even though I could have appealed to the editor of the monograph it would have been to no avail, because the reviewers would have also insisted on the conventional terminology, particularly as one of the reviewers was one of the researchers having done the standard work on the regional geology of that area. It is ludicrous to suggest any hypocrisy or two-facedness. Besides, if you look at some of my papers in the creationist literature, and those of other creationist geologists such as Steve Austin and Kurt Wise, you will notice that we still use the same labels for the rock units as the evolutionists, not by way of compromise, but so everyone knows that we are talking about the same rock units, except we make it clear that we don't agree with the millions of years associated with them. In other words, even in the creationist literature we use the same terminology, though stripped on its conventionaal evolutionary/uniformitaria interpretation.
I believe that specific responses to the article by Alex Ritchie and similar claims by Ian Plimer are available on the Answers in Genesis website, the address for which is:
Please don't misunderstand me, but I have long ago given up trying to defend myself against these kinds of accusations, not through any arrogance or lack of submission to accountability on my part, but simply because it is a great waste of time that distracts me from what the Lord has called me to do. Besides, these people will not be convinced and they are really out for my destruction. The parallel in the Scriptures is with Nehemiah. His enemies tried all sorts of tricks to distract him from doing the work of rebuilding the walls, but their only intention was to kill him and make sure the walls were not rebuilt. I am in no way saying that I am any equal to Nehemiah, but I am resolute in being available to the Lord to do His bidding as He directs, whatever the consequences, and even if we don't appear successful in the world's eyes. The Lord calls us to be faithful - the success is up to Him as He sees fit so that He gets all the glory.
By the way, let me dispell the myth that somehow I make a lot of money out of any of this. Quite the opposite. As far as the consulting work is concerned there has been very little of it, probably averaging around 1 week to 10 days per year at most over the last 15 years. The bulk of livelihood I need to support my family comes from working with the Creation Science Foundation/Answers in Genesis, and the remuneration here, understandably, has been, and is, less than one-third or one-quarter of what I could receive in the mining industry, about the one-third or one-half what I would receive in an academic post, or about one-tenth of what I would receive in consulting. Mind you, I am not complaining one bit, as the Lord has been good to us in so many ways nonetheless.
Andrew Snelling
Thanks for the Ping. I’m listening to a voice recording of The Pilgrim’s Progress. I just listened to Christian’s and Faithful’s discourse about a man named Shameful. Shameful’s arguments against Christianity are rehearsed everyday on your posts by the FR agnostics.
It’s enlightening that these same arguments which assaulted Christians when Bunyan’s book was written (1678) are put forth here. The very same ones. Darwin’s tree, or Voltaire’s essays, or Marx’s book didn’t give rise to the skepticism and rejection of scripture of modern men. They give cover to the Worldly Wisemen of the day.
If you’ve never read the book, it’s highly recommended.
Fish are killed by floods as I’ve observed. Muddy water and high amounts of sediments often choke fishs’ gills and fish are often trapped in pools of receding flood waters. Flood pools were always a good place to catch fish.
So you’re comment, “There should be no fossils of aquatic animals to speak of, since they wouldn’t have been killed, and therefore wouldn’t have left any fossils behind.”, is at odds with reality.
Why do people always assume a refusal to talk to them proof the other person is stumped? There are a lot of people I refuse to talk to because I don’t like them.
I don't have any formal documentation, but the fossils I've seen have been almost exclusively of specimens of animals that no longer exist.
If evolution were true than only a tiny percentage of fossils found should be of current species, yet the numbers I've seen in general are that there is a very high degree of overlap between living species and the fossil record, and that most differences between fossils and living species are very minor. Certainly it fits better with a polyphyletic model on a young earth than old-earth models.
I could be wrong. Where did you see these numbers?
They were?? You mean the whole world was a giant kettle of bouillabaisse? Well, you learn something new everyday...I guess.
Except the earth changed drastically under the weight of all that water. Mountains collapsing perhaps, earth moving and covering those big lizards that lived in the ocean.
There are many variables here which make deciphering the event very challenging.
Once the flood waters subside there would have been land locked fishes which would have certainly perished during evaporation; leaving fossils. There is also a possibility that surviving birds could have fed on these fishes transporting the carcasses to other locations; removing fossils. In addition flooding on the scale described would also cause enormous erosion, transportation, and deposition events which would really mess up any theory of a well-sorted fossil record.
The flood certainly could have taken place and in most likelihood was the result of a glacial dam break, or series of breaks, that could have occurred many hundreds of miles away. Since the perceived size of the world back then was in reality quite small this recorded event may have been much smaller than the biblical account indicates.
I've gotten conflicting information about what happened during the flood. Some say Noah didn't take any fish aboard the Ark, because he didn't need to. Others say the conditions in the oceans were such that there is very little if any chance that anything could have survive in them.
Should have covered everything else living in the ocean right along with them. Why no fossils of modern whales along side those big lizards?
You seem to care a little, you came to this thread and took the time to comment. It does matter. We’re told to by the Bible to earnestly contend for the faith. As for BO, we’re told to pray for our leaders, as they are ordained by God. BO is a bad man. Probably punishment for our banishment of God by way of Secular Humanism which has the Gospel of Evolution.
That article's one of the weakest yet. It posits two contradictory excuses--first, that the sequence of fossils that we see represents where they lived; and second, that it represents the way they settled out from moving water. Well, which is it? Was the water moving fast enough to cause hydrologic sorting, or was it moving slow enough to kill animals in place?
And then it proposes that the animals found in higher layers were better able to escape; "more mobile and faster organisms would tend to seek higher ground...This would tend to separate men from trilobites, amphibians, and dinosaurs." There are plenty of large, slow mammals--how come we don't find mastodon bones mixed in with the dinosaurs? How come none of the smaller, presumably faster dinosaurs managed to get to higher ground along with the mammals?
Are there none? I doubt there aren’t but maybe we haven’t found them because the big lizards didn’t happen to be next to a whale when it was covered.
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.