Aww, that is stupid, even for an YEC. The longer the time, the more layers.
Please try not to project your own ignorance onto others.
Hans
Noah's Ark
- Thread starter Mickmeister
- Start date
Aww, that is stupid, even for an YEC. The longer the time, the more layers.
Please try not to project your own ignorance onto others.
Hans
So, your explanation as to how the flood arranged creatures in the layers expected by evolution,
is that that was how the flood caused them to be arranged.
Nice one
Re your question of where all the dirt comes from.
That's a good scientific question, and it has a good scientific answer.
Are you sure you want to know it?
If you eat this you'll find out where all the dirt came from
So, your explanation as to how the flood arranged creatures in the layers expected by evolution,
is that that was how the flood caused them to be arranged.
Nice one
Re your question of where all the dirt comes from.
That's a good scientific question, and it has a good scientific answer.
Are you sure you want to know it?
If you eat this you'll find out where all the dirt came from
Star dust, or bull dust maybe.
What made the layered cake carefully preserve animals?
If a layer was 10cm thick with specific fossils in it, and it took 10 million years to build up,
how did the 8cm thick animal manage to stay still for 7 million years?
Each layer had to be relatively sudden, logic?
That isn't what I said. I said that we do see evidence of floods - lots of them. What we don't see is evidence of one big flood. There is no evidence that points to a world-wide flood. What you're doing is equivalent to pointing to evidence of elephants in Africa and claiming that there's one in every backyard.
On the contrary, geologists know a lot about where the dirt came from. It's creationists who have no explantion for it except that it was there before the flood.
Sand is an even better example. Sandstone is made up of small particles - i.e. sand - that was made by breaking down bigger rocks. Geologists can even tell where the original rocks came from by the composition of the grains. Creationists, on the other hand, have no explanation for where the sand came from other than, again, that it must have been there before the flood.
You're making the same mistake again. Some layers may be sudden but that doesn't mean that all of them are. There are layers with burrows in them, layers with footprints on them, layers that have been eroded, etc. None of those features could have been added to the layers quickly.
Actually a good question.
http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/whatisafossil.htm
Anything that dies and doesn't get protected soon by scavengers or decay won't fossilize, nor will it do so if conditions aren't right, since fossilization is actually the replacement of the harder parts of the organism by mineral deposits. And then it might get subjected to geological forces that twist or destroy it. We very rarely find a complete fossil exactly as the creature died.
Note...permineralization (the process of mineral replacement) and lithification (the hardening of the sediments into a rock form) take a lot longer than a few thousand years.
The mindset of creationists is interesting.
They go from question to question, trying to find one that scientists can't answer.
Funny thing is they aren't really interested in the question, or its answer.
All they are interested in doing is proving science wrong.
I'll tell you why.
They already have all the answers to scientific questions.
They are in the Bible.
They go from question to question, trying to find one that scientists can't answer.
Funny thing is they aren't really interested in the question, or its answer.
All they are interested in doing is proving science wrong.
I'll tell you why.
They already have all the answers to scientific questions.
They are in the Bible.
I'm sorry for misreading your post. I do see elephants in every back yard! Every where I look I see evidence of the flood, the shapes of the mountains, the deposits of stone, the twisted layering, the distribution of flora and fauna, the human race, everything is evidence.
I also see how all the elements today are waiting to turn the earth into a sea of brimstone.
By suddenly or quickly, I mean not over millions of years. Now of course there would be layers with foot prints in them, the earth had local flooding, glacial activity, mud slides, erosion and deposition for 4.5 thousand years, after the flood. Some times evidence for the flood is masked by these.
Under certain conditions oil can be produced within years, and fossils within months.
What about the other conditions?
I don't know. But rocks can be made out of sand/debri under pressure quite quickly, as also heat could be involved.
I'm sure this attempt will be as fruitless as the others, but...
How about fossils found as inclusions in amber? Amber, itself fossilized tree resin, takes a very long time to form. How do you explain organisms that are sometimes found encased within?
Emphasis mine. Link.
Does this chemical process not constitute "genuine science"? Or do you believe amber can also sometimes be formed in just a few years? If this is your answer, I would dearly love to see a citation...
Some examples, just to add a little color:
Last edited:
Good science discards existing theories by providing new ones that give better results. "Disregarding" something because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions isn't honest. How can you find out anything if you think you already know everything? Why bother asking questions at all?
I don't disregard something because it does not fit my opinion,
I disregard something that does not fit with what the Bible states. So I'm not dishonest. The Bible doesn't keep updating its knowledge like science does. It is stable and reliable.
That's about right.
I hardly have a wealth of info. Nature does. It's this abundance of natural evidence, and your resistance to it, that makes your thinking so seriously flawed. In all the dialogue I've had with you, you've made no real effort to understand it.
You see it every day. You just ignore it.
Oh really? So now you pretend to know something about all animals? One of the earliest creatures is the cyanobacteria (which left fossils around 3.5 billion years old). It has features of both animals and plants, and is a closely related to both, if not a common ancestor.
The problem with your statement about design is that cyanobacteria are not designed. They are the product of chemistry. You can no longer claim they are "designed" than to say the shape of the water molecule is "designed". It's not. It has a shape that best distributes the electrical charge, in obedience to natural law.
Is this designed? No, it's the intrinsic property of the configuration of atoms, nothing more. Waht about this:
No, it's the optimum spacing between molecules, made possible when sufficient heat is removed from liquid water to form ice crystals. Is it designed? Of course not. It's simply the intrinsic property of the individual molecules, forming a compact geometric structure in accordance with the laws of nature.
Getting from these structures to the structures that comprise the cyanobacteria above is your first step in understanding that it's not design, but merely the intrinsic properties of chemicals that permits things like a cell wall and a nuclear helix. At this level of analysis, you need only understand electrical charge and geometry. It's that simple.
The helical geometry of DNA is not designed. It's intrinsic to this polymer.
That's coming from a position of deliberate indifference about the laws of nature, not from a position of information. All life is related, and at each fork in the phenotypes (physical differences) the "relatives" owe their existence to the success of the common ancestor. There are countless examples.
First of all, evolution has little to do with how things look to you. You, of all people. Sickle cell anemia evolved in Africa in resistance to the mosquito that carries malaria. But you can't see the result. And you certainly can't see the virus that evolves every flu season, in response to the global effect of human immune systems. But when you fall ill, you are experiencing evolution in real time. The virus that infects you has survived because of the lack of immune response. Odds are, by the time you are infected, you, too, will lack immunity. This is the problem with the oversimplifications you are using to dismiss the wealth of evidence around you.
That's contradictory. Small variations in a few generations will tend to accumulate over many generations, producing the radical differences you are looking for.
"Made" is absurd. The growth of an individual plant or animal from a spore, cell, or from the union of male and female gametes, is completely different than the process of evolution by natural selection. You simply have no idea how things work.Gerhard Kemmerer said:
Really? So the mutation that causes a birth defect doesn't affect an individual? Tell that to the person born with grotesque physical geatures, disease, or disability.
I'm not sure what your point is. 1 in 250 pregnancies produce a cyclops that aborts. Mutation is immediate. The effect of the mutation is much more complicated. You need to have some background in statistics to get your arms around this subject. Based on what you've been propounding here, I'm certain beyond a reasonable doubt that you have no idea how statistics works and how it rules over the strange and unpredictable forms that have evolved over billions of years.
Keep denying magic, and you'll be cured of most of your ridiculous ideas. But pay closer attention to the swamp. This is where a lot of nature has been at work for eons. Thus, we are made in the image of frogs, and worms, and sponges, and jellies, and indeed all forms that came before. We are made in the image of the helix, and the cell membrane, and the ribosome, and so on. We are made from the egg, that hearkens to the spores of earliest metazoans, and the sperm which resembles the the choanocytes of lowest colonial forms of life.
The hollow ball (blastocoel) that forms the most primitive dermal layers in all plants and animals converges out of the mass of human cells that divide recursively after fertilization.
This mechanism for embryonic development was worked out during the evolution of the Cambrian plants and animals, when fertilization and recombination of disparate genes became the formula for rapid divergence of species. Embryonic development proceeds like this for all subsequent species. The formation of the flat dermal plate with primitive streak where the notochord will form during human stem cell differentiation parallels the flatworm in the form type comparisons you keep relying on.
Which is why you should abandon magic, superstition, legend, fable and myth and turn to the absolute - nature itself which is precisely what is happening in our world, and nothing more. Look to nature for every answer and it will reveal more than you could possibly hold in your brain if you lived to be as old as they said Noah was.
Note, mutation as we normally think of it is one of several means of altering the gene pool. Another is the mixing of genes during sexual reproduction. This includes the process of crossover. It takes place in both the father and mother during meiosis (production of sperm and egg cells). Each of us possesses two sets of our grandparents' genes.
This shows how random mixtures from the grandparents' DNA causes countless combinations of traits to vary from generation to generation. This acts in combination with mutation and/or as a source of mutation. This variation is precisely what accounts for the rise of traits that are acted upon by natural selection and which lead to evolution and speciation.