Fossil Formation: WHEN in relation to the Flood?
With apologies to Mr. Oard I am moving this discussion from the ASK THE EXPERT section which should be reserved for HIS answers. So in the interest of discontinuing the hijacking of his page I will move it here:
First of all the original question of Jeb Smith:
MR oard, about what % of all fossils do you place as flood deposited fossils?
AND
Just to add onto the last, what % fossils are ice age fossils and do you know how many ice age fossils total there are?
followed by elaboration of the question (by Jim Brenneman)
To add to Jeb Smith's question, I wonder about the percentages of fossils from three time frames:
- Those FORMED pre-flood, We would think there are a very few PRE-Flood fossils, since the very material used to form fossils would have been ground up materials of the earth's land surface, including any pre-flood rock containing a rare fossil.
- Those FORMED during the Flood year - very many Flood-generated fossils,
- Those FORMED post-fllood. And we should expect a considerable number of fossils formed since the flood, due to residual flood events, like glacial run-off, the breaking of natural "dams" of ice or mud, to cause massive local inundations of blossoming animal populations in verdant areas below these water reservoirs.
For my part this question would relate to
- all fossils in existence buried in the earth's crust on the one hand,
- and also the break down of fossils that are currently being studied in labs and museums - those that are no longer in situ, but which have been removed from the ground.
I would think a big number of those under study are indeed post-Flood (anthropological specimens as well as stone age fauna). But on the whole are we correct in assuming that the vast majority of all the fossils in the earth were produced by the Flood (that is representing animals that were living at the time of the onset of the Flood, and some also which might have been born early in the Flood year)?
Of course we know that any "percentage" would be put forward wholly for illustrative purposes and would never be considered as a technically precise figure.
Views: 203
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Brenneman on -
Suddenly there was an answer, but not from Mr. Oard:
- Comment by Lou Hamby 5 hours ago
- Jim, in my reading I believe that the what is referred to [as] the Cambrian explosion would have the most fossil representation, animals insects etc, are much less than the Cambrian explosion as I understand museum pieces and study.
- Then followed this response, which I have edited [italicized] to make it hopefully a bit kinder and gentler. . .
- Comment by Jim Brenneman 4 hours ago
- All of the fossils represented in the Cambrian "explosion" are the evidence that life arose suddenly, fully developed. There is no progression from single-cell simple life forms up to the more complex multi-cellular organisms, and fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. We agree about that. You believe in Creationism, that all life arose suddenly.
- However the multitudes of fossils throughout the whole earth were killed in the single global event described in the Bible as the Flood of Noah, the world-wide kataklusmos described by Peter that destroyed the world that then was. All of those fossils with a few minute exceptions were deposited in the Flood. The creationist position consistently is that the fossils of the so-called "Cambrian Explosion" were formed as a result of the destruction of the Flood. This is basic information to those who are creationists. There is nothing described in the revelation of the primeval earth that would account for any earlier, pre-flood deposit of such vast quantities (trillions upon trillions) of fossils.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Brenneman on
-
Then there was an apparent misunderstanding, from which I will remove the personal attacks:
Lou wrote: * * * *I agree that all fossils show up suddenly and fully formed no matter where you place them in time pre or post flood....
We have talked about flood fossil pre and post for how long? * * *
You asked a question about where the most fossils might be found with respect to museums and study,
the answer would be that most museums would say the "Cambrian explosion" because they would answer that question in an evolutionary sense. That's the world['s position]. . . but you know that's not me....??? * * * *
I tried to answer your question....
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Brenneman on
-
Then I responded to explain that Lou had not answered my question at all. Further re-stating of the question followed, with deletions of apparently unkind words and kinder restatement in italics:
With apologies to Mr. Oard,
* * * * I am sorry if there was any implication in my words to suggest that you do not believe that life showed up suddenly, fully formed. Of course you believe this. We have established long ago that you are a creationist in that sense. So we are agreed: LOU BELIEVES IN THE SUDDEN APPEARANCE OF ALL LIFE ON EARTH. OK.
What you don't believe is that all life on earth was just as suddenly FULLY DESTROYED, suddenly, in a single year of a world-wide flood, except for the representative kinds specifically included on the Ark. Are we on the same page here thus far? YOU do not believe in the sudden destruction of all life on earth? Right?
The fossils of the Cambrian explosion were NOT FORMED PRE-FLOOD. That was the point, and that is what you don't seem to understand. Fossils which we are able to examine today were formed in the main (99% or more) during the Flood and in the centuries immediately following the Flood.
* * * * *
When you suggest that the "Cambrian Explosion" fossils were formed pre-flood, it is a position of the uniformitarian/evolution camp. Fossils were formed in the main during and after the Flood. * * * *
And NO, the question posed here does not ask anything about what might be the interpretation or view of the Museums about Fossils.
What are the projections and guesses of CC posters here with regard to this question?
What percentage of fossils (the overall mass of them in the earth's crust, and those under study in current research) - As to the occasion of their formation as fossils,
- What approximate percentage are 1) Pre-Flood?
- What approximate percentage were formed 2) During the Flood?
- What approximate percentage were formed 3.) Post-Flood?
Could we consider taking a wild stab at some numbers? Would you agree with the following guesses or not?
Fossils formed Pre-Flood: .005% (In existence) and even fewer presently under physical examination.
Fossils formed During the Flood: 90% (in existence) and maybe 50% of current as specimens.
Fossils formed Post-Flood 9.995% in mostly upper strata (in existence) and maybe 49.005% as current specimens.
What would be the guess of those who hold to the your local flood worldview?
I am trying to figure out if Lou's position is that the "Cambrian explosion would have the most fossil representation?" IF SO, where in time would he you place the formation of those fossils of the Cambrian Explosion? Just wondering. That is the question at hand. But my experience with for these many months is that some people are are unable to answer such a simple pointed question,asked from a creationist perspective. Just once could we give it a try? Just some friendly conversation with no assertions that someone is a Roman Catholic Dogmatist, akin to a "flatearther?"
-
Permalink Reply by Richard K on -
Post Flood events from the ice - age didn't have many plants or animals left to bury. Probably no huge trees grew under a glacier as an exa.
-
Permalink Reply by Lou Hamby on -
O.K. JIm, I "now" get the nuance of your conversation with respect to fossils. I guess I will respond back to you with the same exact response---I don't care the timing of fossils whether pre- or post....really. Clearly I have read YEC's that believe some fossils are pre-flood, I think Dr. Oard intimated as such...so I am fine either way, its not going to change what was left with respect to their formation in time. My comments or ideas fit well within where ever one would or could place fossils. I am more interested in what fossils represent than the placing of their existence or creation of them through cataclysm.... We both know that under certain circumstances that fossils can be formed extremely fast (Mt. Saint Helens), I would venture to say that under the right circumstances a slow development could also be responsible of some. But none the less they exist and the question is what do they mean in context?
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Brenneman on
-
Thanks Richard. However, I don't think anyone here would be imagining trees growing under the ice.That was an amusing thought. But I am sure you are aware though, that the ice did not cover the entire planet.
Creationists would expect that animal life and plant life was quite profuse very soon after the Flood. Within just a few years, the planet was lush with verdant growth of all kinds of vegetation suited to the new ecology of the post-Flood. Animals were being fruitful and multiplying and adapting to the new surroundings, adapting to life in relationship to other animals.
Yet even while life was re-establishing itself on the planet, chaotic upheavals were in progress simultaneously. The Bible says that after this final global flood, the mountains rose up and the valleys went down, so that the waters of that final global flood went down to the places God had provided for them (Ps. 104). Of course this would have involved substantial tectonic activity - volcanism, earthquakes, tsunamis, and mudslides. It is also likely that some cosmic impacts continued to occur following the flood, based on the evidence of their craters in upper levels of the strata. These events would have initiated fossil-forming conditions as well.
The animal and plant life of the entire planet was destroyed in the Flood, forming fossils in thousands of feet of strata all over the planet, on every continent, from mountains high to valleys deep, clear down to bedrock that was formed before the creation of life. Those fossils, which are every where, are the majority of the fossils - all of which were living things just before the Flood. They were killed in the Flood and formed as fossils due to the actions of the Flood.
Fossils were formed sporadically following the flood, here and there in local flood events, as well as in disasters associated with post-flood "residual catastrophism." Since these fossil are more often found in strata closer to the surface, then these are often the specimens studied in labs at museums and universities.
Post Flood events from the ice age - surely a few hundred years after the flood there would have been many trees and animals. As the ice was melting, massive inland seas were formed in the warmer areas of the continents. As these spilled over the topographical features that held them, the water would travel toward the seas, inundating every thing in its path. Often canyons and valleys would be eroded as a result. The formation of the Grand Canyon would be an example of this sort of event.
But still, I would ask Richard, what percentage of fossils would you view to be from the Flood, from events before the Flood, and from events SINCE the Flood?
-
Permalink Reply by Lou Hamby on
-
Also with respect to Cambrian...I was trying to be helpful to answer your question....apparently I mis-understood what you were actually asking Dr. Oard....
What evolutionists call Cambrian Explosion clearly happened in time. We creationists set that event at a different time than evolutionists.
We agree as creationists they show up fully formed and one can observe other higher up the food chain fossil records that also show that exact same thing. Also within the record itself animals that have went extinct since their creation never changed their morphology or type, they lived and died as they were created within the confines of their diversity.
Therefor we don't ascribe to ancestors in the sense of evolutionary doctrines or expectations. Instead of a tree with animals set in certain branches to imply relationships (evolution), grass blades would make a better creation model as each animal is a grass blade that grows up directly and independently from one another. This implication shows the creativity and huge diversity that was in existence not as a result of an unguided process, but a guided intelligently designed creation within the confines of 6,000 years..
Dinosaurs, coelacanths, trilobites, huge dragon flies, and all known fossil kinds, T Rex, Mammoths, Cave Bears and Giant Ground sloths (Argentina), Mosasaurs, brontosaurs and others including pterodactyls and man lived together in harmony pre-flood if your a creationist, there is no room for any other explanation with in the confines of 6,000 years givenGods mighty creation in the beginning and also the subsequent evidences of dinosaurs in man's written history including the bible itself in Job and others, as well as the belief from YEC's that the fossils of most of these animals occurred as a result of the destruction of the WW Flood. You would agree with this as well as all creationists on this Forum.....God created all of these animals, which show a sudden emergence fully formed.
Since there was no death prior to the Garden, all these animals would have been part of the animals brought to the ARK supernaturally. So that would be all of our dinosaur and what we might call modern diversity "kinds" on the ARK. That is clear in Gods word.
Since God said two of each kind, that would include dinosaurs, Mammoths, Pterodactyls etc as well huge constrictor snakes and others....
So with respect to the flood event and formation of fossils no one can deny that fossils don't exist which include all of these created animals. No creationist can deny that God created these and are a result of His work.
Certainly we could define many more facts and insights about the animals that God created. So where you and I would differ, both accepting the above tenants....is that whether there was a WW flood or not, which I know you can not put aside, there are other possible explanations for fossil formation after the fall...the flood event aside what ever your view, clearly with in the context of Gods creative work and "be fruitful and multiply", we have fossils.... so the question is what does this record of fossilized amber encased animals and insects,and fossils show and mean?
You are clear on what you believe and how you see it. I am not as sure as you are, nor is the implication of fossils and what they mean so clear to me in reference to a WW Flood vs a local flood. I don't expect your to accept my view, or the view of other Christians that believe in a local flood... But what I do expect is that we are both creationists and should be kind to one another......
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Brenneman on
-
The time of the formation of fossils, not the speed of their formation is the KEY to understanding what they mean. That is the issue of context. It is so exasperating that you just don't care about this. You are disregarding the most unanimous message of the vast fossil graveyard that covers the earth.
Lou Hamby said:O.K. JIm, I don't care the timing of fossils whether pre- or post....really. . . . .either way, its not going to change what was left with respect to their formation in time.
It is not a matter of where we might feel like placing them. The issue is how and when were they formed in fact? And you are not interested in this?
My comments or ideas fit well within where ever one would or could place fossils.
No, your ideas do not fit with the reality of the fossil record, how the fossils were formed and their universal, global distributions in unfathomable abundance all over the entire planet. Because you "don't care" and are "not interested" in this vital matter you wind up with a little pitter patter of a local flood. It is this message of the fossils that you have failed to grasp.
I am more interested in what fossils represent than the placing of their existence or creation of them through cataclysm....
Fossils are only formed through rapid burial, not as you say, "under certain circumstances." No, this is how they are virtually always formed. It is never through the normal course of day to day dying and falling to the ground. It is always due to traumatic death and sudden burial in the process, or shortly thereafter.
We both know that under certain circumstances that fossils can be formed extremely fast (Mt. Saint Helens), I would venture to say that under the right circumstances a slow development could also be responsible of some.
How could fossils form slowly? How could fossils form, apart from immediate burial and directly connected to their recent death? Surely you recognize that if there were such a slowly formed fossil, it would be a great rarity, one out of many billions which were all formed rapidly.
But none the less they exist and the question is what do they mean in context?
CONTEXT. This is what you fail to consider. The context of the vast and nearly unanimous preponderance of fossils all over the world is overwhelmingly and quite evidently a global flood. When you fail to consider this context of fossils in general then you will continue to misread the individual message of a given fossil in particular.
Most fossils were formed by the Global Flood and as long as you fail to bear this in mind, you will continue to misunderstand all that we talk about here at Creation Conversations. You will continue to feel like you are being slighted and ignored in the answers given by the experts and others. You will continue to pile up arguments which we feel have been answered repeatedly, answers which we feel have been ignored by you.
And PLEASE don't dodge this single issue by hopping off to the Kenites or Migrations to the Americas. We are talking here about HOW and When fossils were formed, the conditions and context of their formation. Posts which digress into other topics, if they are mine, I will remove them. If they are of others, I will ask them to remove them.
I hope to keep this thread of discussion on topic. THE CONTEXT OF FOSSIL FORMATION and what it means.
-
Permalink Reply by Lou Hamby on
-
Thanks Jim--If you re-read what I said above, we agree on most all of the issues surrounding animal creation, and the ARK animals being brought supernaturally what ever your perspective is on the flood. In your scenario all animals including dinosaurs, in mine the same but local to the area how ever large that was.
The only time I feel slighted on this site is when either of us get personal. Other than that we are discussing what we both see here.
I guess maybe you need to have me say this one more time, the timing or where "you" place fossils due to the flood cataclysm is not something for me that I need to camp out on. There are other issues deeper issues about fossils in relationship to WW Flood that make me ask questions also send me to a local flood and not a WW Flood.
I don't mean that disrespectfully and yes your convinced that I don't believe the bible and all that... But there are so many issues that surround the WW Flood that have no answers and the fossils evidences infer certain things in a creationists context. Even if I clearly give you a WW Flood.
I am not being arbitrary...the fossils exist, where they do exist there are often evidences of cataclysm, but not all the time and the fossil record "is" a pic in time of our diversity that existed prior to their death as you say post flood. So clearly all these fossil animal kinds would aslo have been included in the ARK....
With respect to fossil formation outside of a WW flood there are many possible ways fossils could and were created. While many suggest quickly, quickly can be tied to many other natural occurring phenomenon.
For me that part of the fossil discussion is not an issue. They exist, in time, were part fo Gods immense creation, they lived and died. They represent an unbroken line of non-change (stasis) within their record. They are or were part of the animal diversity, of which many with fossil records still exist today.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Brenneman on
-
I will try to stay on the topic as I respond here.
Lou Hamby said:Also with respect to Cambrian...I was trying to be helpful to answer your question....apparently I mis-understood what you were actually asking Dr. Oard....
What evolutionists call Cambrian Explosion clearly happened in time. We creationists set that event at a different time than evolutionists.
I am not sure yet that you understand what we are saying. The Fossils of the "Cambrian Explosion" were formed when? Certainly we agree as fellow-creationists that all that flora and fauna appeared suddenly, fully developed and distinct in kinds and species, with NO preliminary developmental stages or forms. Those fossils show a wide array of animal kinds with no transitional forms and no prior stages of gradual rise from single celled creatures to birds and mammals.
We creationists set the event of their origin in a single week long event which was narrated in Genesis One and Two and referenced by God himself as quoted in Exodus 20:11, just as Lou says here:
We agree as creationists they show up fully formed
Lou's difficulty though, is not in understanding how they originated, but he simply does not acknowledge the event which brought an end to the life forms represented in the "Cambrian Explosion." When were the fossils of the so-called Cambrian Strata formed?
This thread is not about what ideas might be derived from the forms of fossils, as if there is some chronological sequence representing a progressive deposition of subsequent generations of living things over time. This is the faulty notion to which Lou returns here, speaking of the fossil record as if it some sort of sequential thing, recording their cycles of living and dying:
and one can observe other higher up the food chain fossil records that also show that exact same thing. Also within the record itself animals that have gone extinct since their creation never changed their morphology or type, they lived and died as they were created within the confines of their diversity.
The fossils however, do not represent a succession of generations, showing the extinction of animals through the passing of time. It shows only two main time frames:
- The world before the flood in a snapshot, - the vast preponderance of fossils all over the earth,
- and in a few scattered samples, the world shortly after the Flood.
The global flood came which destroyed all living things within less than a year's time. The subsequent world was then rapidly repopulated from the ancestors that were on the ark (two and only two of every kind - except for the seven clean).
Digressions into interpreting the fossils as a record of on-going progress of life on earth are not under discussion here, so I will not comment on those points of Lou, even though there are many excellent thoughts and ideas that would be wonderfull to discuss. But the topic here is the ORIGIN and context of FOSSIL FORMATION. What we are trying to communicate is the fact that the wide array, the complex menagerie of all kinds of animals all over the world (much larger in number and variety than currently extant creatures), this vast graveyard of now extinct creatures points loudly to nothing less than a global flood:
Dinosaurs, coelacanths, trilobites, huge dragon flies, and all known fossil kinds, T Rex, Mammoths, Cave Bears and Giant Ground sloths (Argentina), Mosasaurs, brontosaurs and others including pterodactyls and man lived together in harmony pre-flood
Where is that world? Where is that "pre-flood" world. Lou you don't believe in the Flood. How can you reference this pre-flood world, which is gone? It is gone, but you don't believe in the mechanism sent BY GOD to make it gone. The vast fossil graveyard was formed by a single global and cataclysmic event. IT IS just as you say, if only you would believe your own words with respect to the origin of that world and see that it applies also to the destruction of that world in the plain narrative of the Flood:
if you're a creationist, there is no room for any other explanation with in the confines of 6,000 years given God's mighty creation in the beginning and also the subsequent evidences of dinosaurs in man's written history including the Bible itself in Job and others, as well as the belief from YEC's that the fossils of most of these animals occurred as a result of the destruction of the WW Flood.
You see, Lou, the fossils of this vast and unfathomable graveyard are not just a theory or a belief, or a view or an opinion. These fossils in their insurmountable numbers are there. They are reality. They are truth. How do you explain their formation apart from the Global Flood? What is your model? Where do you find room? Where do you find any space in time, where is the occasion within the 6,000 years to which you subscribe?
You would agree with this as well as all creationists on this Forum.....God created all of these animals, which show a sudden emergence fully formed.
But Lou, you do NOT agree, that all of these animals also show a sudden world-wide destruction. That is the topic of this thread. What is the time and occasion, the context of fossil formation?
Since there was no death prior to the Garden, all these animals would have been part of the animals brought to the ARK supernaturally.
However, there was death after the Fall, after the Garden. And clearly there was adaptation and variation after the Fall. AND no, no, no, "all these animals" would not have been brought to the Ark, neither naturally nor supernaturally. The Bible is clear about what animals were on board the Ark. But you don't believe in a global flood and the need for the ark in the first place, so why would "ALL" these animals have been brought to the ark? You believe that the fringee was not on the ark, but survived in a desert far-removed from the area affected by the local flood of Noah. But in this comment quoted above it appears that you are represent the Ark as a means of saving ALL THE ANIMALS of the whole creation. Why? Why if there was no flood affecting the whole creation?
The fossils show the death of all things all over the world. Therefore the flood was global. The Bible specifically delineates which animals were taken on the ark, and by describing its dimensions, the Bible also tells us approximately how many as well. It was not as you say, "all these animals" which "God created," but rather it was as the Bible says, "two [and only two] of every kind [except 7 of the clean kinds]" and only "air-breathing land animals in whose nostrils was the breath of life." Yes that would include dinosaurs as you say here:
So that would be all of our dinosaur and what we might call modern diversity "kinds" on the ARK. That is clear in Gods word.
But you are wrong to say that it would include "diversity of 'kinds' on the Ark." It is clearly that the diversity within kinds was not taken on the ark, but only two of every kind. But I suppose you mean by diversity, all the different kinds, rather than all the different varieties within a kind.
Since God said two of each kind, that would include dinosaurs, Mammoths, Pterodactyls etc as well huge constrictor snakes and others....
NO, it would not mean huge constrictor snakes. It would mean representative constrictor snakes, preferable NOT huge in size, but rather smaller younger snakes with a full reproductive life ahead of them. If you are going to try to describe the position of those who hold to the global flood, then you need to try to be correct on such details as this.
And further, we would guess that ALL Varieties of the Cetatopsian Kind were taken on the ark, but rather only TWO of that kind. And likewise only two of the "Elephantidae" kind (not all the current and extinct varieties of that kind - mammoth, mastodon, african (bush and forest), asian, cretian, american). Then you talk about "the flood event," but you don't mean the same thing as we do, do you?
So with respect to the flood event. . . .
You are always going to differ with us here at Creation Conversations, because the fact of the flood stares you in the face and you simply won't consider it. You only want to draw conclusions and gain supposed insights from the individual fossils while ignoring the pile of fossils as a whole.
Certainly we could define many more facts and insights about the animals that God created.
Where you differ with us is the whole approach to the Bible, first of all. You think the meanings if Scripture are subjective and up for grabs, and uncertain. Meanwhile your ideas about what individual fossils seem to say are undeniable facts. And you can't see how backwards this is. That is where we differ.
So where you and I would differ, both accepting the above tenants....is that whether there was a WW flood or not, which I know you can not put aside, there are other possible explanations for fossil formation after the fall...the flood event aside what ever your view,
NO, my friend, it is rather as you said earlier: if you're a creationist, there is no room for any other explanation with in the confines of 6,000 years. There is no other explanation logically, geologically, astronomically, or biblically that fits with the facts that you stay stare me in the face. These same facts stare you in the face.
Here in this thread we are in a discussion on the formation of fossils. SO, since there are other possible explanations, this would be the perfect place to discuss the ideas for which you have already said earlier there is no room for. . .
clearly with in the context of Gods creative work and "be fruitful and multiply", we have fossils.... so the question is what does this record of fossilized amber encased animals and insects,and fossils show and mean?
That will be a great thing to discuss, but only in the context of the reality that those fossils were in the vast majority formed in the global flood event. Otherwise we will be spinning our wheels and butting heads as always. You will never get the right understanding of the particulars until you have a right understanding of the overall whole. What these fossils mean first of all is there was a global event responsible for their formation in the first place.
You are clear on what you believe and how you see it.
How I see it is exactly the same as you see it: A VAST WORLD-WIDE FOSSIL GRAVEYARD, pointing to only one thing: a vast global catastrophe which affected the whole planet. There is no other way to see. I see the sun, you see the sun. It is there.The vast graveyard is there, but it "doesn't matter to you," and you "don't care about it."
By way of example: Just like the ruined cities and mass graves of Europe showed a continent-wide war and multiple atrocities, the Fossil graveyard also shows a single world-wide devastation in a single event. But you want to look at the single remains of an individual from a mass grave at Buchenwald and try to decide whether she was a seamstress or a jeweler, a teen or an elderly person and how she might have been living. But all of those details will never be clearly ascertained until you first established the context of her death and burial. It was the holocaust, and it cannot be denied.
So the fossil graveyards point to an event. It was the Kataklusmos, the Global Flood and it cannot be denied.
I am not as sure as you are, nor is the implication of fossils and what they mean so clear to me in reference to a WW Flood vs a local flood. I don't expect your to accept my view, or the view of other Christians that believe in a local flood...
I don't expect you to accept the faulty, head-in-the sand view that denies the facts staring you in the face of the GLOBAL Fossil Graveyard that points to the Global Flood and nothing else. The truth is not a matter of assessing how many people vote for a particular "view" as you call it. It is simply the reality evidenced by the facts, and it is first of all the simple statement of the narrative of the Bible. Just as plainly as it states that there was an ark (as you acknowledge) it likewise simply states that the flood destroyed all flesh that moved and breathed which God had created upon the earth. And that is exactly what is buried in the GLOBAL graveyard of fossils from pole to pole, from mountains to valleys, in depths of thousands of feet. There is not a single viable explanation within the 6,000 years of history since creation, and neither is there any other explanation given in Scripture. The vast global graveyard of fossils was formed in the main as a result of the global flood.
But what I do expect is that we are both creationists and should be kind to one another......
I do hope that you will be kind to me, and I to you. But above all I hope that we will honor the simple truth of the Word of God. Meanwhile let us not disregard the deaths of billions of animals, and the trillions of memorials they left behind in the fossils all over the world.
SO AGAIN, I give you an opportunity to respond to the question and topic of THIS thread: When and how were fossils formed? Or do you want to continue running from it?
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Brenneman on
-
Lou, You said:
I guess maybe you need to have me say this one more time, the timing or where "you" place fossils due to the flood cataclysm is not something for me that I need to camp out on.
No, Lou, there is exactly where you need to camp. What you call the "deeper" issues are small and insignificant in comparison to this critical understanding. You will always come up with the wrong answers from fossils until you first understand the context of their formation.
There are other issues deeper issues about fossils in relationship to WW Flood that make me ask questions also send me to a local flood and not a WW Flood.
No, I am not convinced that you "don't believe the Bible." Why do you keep saying that when I never do?
I don't mean that disrespectfully and yes your convinced that I don't believe the bible and all that...
You do not accept the straightforward narrative of the Flood. You believe the Bible but you simply have an incorrect understanding of a few passages.
But there are so many issues that surround the WW Flood that have no answers and the fossils evidences infer certain things in a creationists context.
Smiling I say, I wish you would stop using the word "infer" because the evidence implies, while those looking at the evidence, or reading the passage, or listening to the speaker are the ones who infer. You mean to say there are no answers but that the fossil evidences imply certain things in a creationist's context. And WE AGREE ON THAT. But what you are missing is the loud and clear message that the fossils don't merely "IMPLY" but which they shout plainly, directly, and unanimously.
Even if I clearly give you a WW Flood.
You can't give it to me. God already did.
I am not being arbitrary...the fossils exist, where they do exist there are often evidences of cataclysm,
No, they ARE ALWAYS formed quickly by a sudden cataclysm of some sort. There is no other way. It is not a matter of "often." No, the are always formed by sudden cataclysm, and you are hard pressed to think of any other way. If you can imagine any sort of gradual thing, it would only be a single rare example out of billions formed by that single cataclysmic evidence world-wide.
but not all the time
So, YES, virtually all the time.
and the fossil record "is" a pic in time of our diversity that existed prior to their death as you say post flood.
NO, it is not post flood. It is exactly not what what I am saying - the fossil record depicts the world as it existed on the day the flood came. It is the pre-flood world that is depicted in the vast fossil graveyard. Very few fossils remain that might have been formed pre-flood. The post-flood fossils show the rise of the new world populations of plants and animals and man in the few centuries following the Flood. So again: FOSSILS were formed in the main by the FLOOD, and they were the animals that were living all over the world at the moment the flood came.
So clearly all these fossil animal kinds would aslo have been included in the ARK....
AND again no, clearly (at least according to Scripture) all these fossil animal kinds would NOT have been included in the Ark. We will keep saying this until you get your picture of our position correct. No one who believes in the global flood believes that ALL these fossil animals kinds (varieties) would have been included on the ark. Where have you ever seen any adherent of the global flood assert this? Where do you find this in the biblical description of the ark's animal cargo.
NOT ALL THESE ANIMAL KINDS, but two and only two of each particular kind were taken on the ark (except for the seven representatives of the clean kinds).
With respect to fossil formation outside of a WW flood there are many possible ways fossils could and were created.
No, Lou, outside of the WW Flood there are no possible mechanisms or ways for the vast fossil graveyard that covers the whole planet to be formed or created - not within the 6,000 years of earth's existence which you say you embrace (not grudgingly). Please elaborate on how you think the worldwide fossil graveyard could have been formed (not just a local sample or two of post-flood fossil formation, but the body of work as a whole).
Then you say "many" suggest quickly:
While many suggest quickly, quickly can be tied to many other natural occurring phenomenon.
No, not many, but ALL paleontologists and geologists readily recognize that all fossils are formed rapidly by a a traumatic catastrophe, and that it must always happen quickly. It is not possible any other way. I would be happy to have you enlighten us here as to manners of fossil formation that do not involve quick or sudden death and near immediate entrapment and enclosure thereafter. This whole thread is all about that.
For me that part of the fossil discussion is not an issue.
But that part of the fossil discussion is the issue. It is the issue. They do not represent an unbroken line. It is not the burial of a line that we have before us, but of an entire world and all of its population in a single global event. This is the issue. This is what you need to see. The grave yard is there. It is what it is. It exists. You cannot make it into a string of widely separated events in time. There simply is not enough time if you truly subscribe to the 6000 years specified in Scripture (not grudgingly) and neither is there any biblical description of such an event necessary to produce such a fossil graveyard, other than the Flood..
They exist, in time,
And the question you need to answer is WHERE and WHEN and HOW in the short period of time allotted by your solid and ungrudging belief in Scripture were these fossils formed in their vast abundance if not the Flood? I wish you could have the same tenacity to face this as you do temerity to evade it. You must face the issue of how the vast dumps of fossil graveyards all over the planet at all levels on all continents, in thousands of feet of strata were formed - how and when?
-
Permalink Reply by Richard K on
-
I hold to the notion as well that as the waters assuaged there was movement all the way down to the tectonic plates. It makes sense, anyways. Therefore there would be a continuation of movement even today 4500 years later.
However I see it as a settling down period even though volcanic activity may have accelerated for a time, the movement of water due to tectonic activity was subsiding. IMO.
The Grand Caynon and Petrified Forest may very well have formed after the Flood, but that would just be the drainage of the huge alluvial plain.(perhaps a hundred years or so?) I doubt much in the way of dryland plants did much in that area and now it's all desert.
So I said all of that to say, that I don't see many post flood conditions occuring that produce fossils. It would be interestted to learn about some post flood fossils and how they happened to be formed. I've heard about fencepost fossilizing in a few years, but that doesn't talk about naturally occuring scenarios.
Jim Brenneman said:But still, I would ask Richard, what percentage of fossils would you view to be from the Flood, from events before the Flood, and from events SINCE the Flood?
Resources
© 2012 Created by Creation Conversations.
Powered by
