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:

  1. 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.
  2. Those FORMED during the Flood year - very many Flood-generated fossils,
  3. 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

  1. all fossils in existence buried in the earth's crust on the one hand,
  2. 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: 376

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Something can be "not good" due to the fact that God has not YET completed a creative work. God never creates anything that is "not good." I agree with Brian, that we cannot say "there were no further acts of creation following that."

Thank God that He continues to create in His work of redemption. This creation of redemption is the reason we live in Him (2 Cor. 5:17)!  Within God's redemptive work there are often CREATIVE MIRACLES, as Brian noted.

Still it seems to me that since the Scripture says, the works were finished, that would mean that no new things were created at the Fall.. Rather things were modified from within their genetic coding. All kinds remained the same kinds, but those kinds could express new traits that were derived from DNA passed on from the kinds of the creation week.

In the original creation (very good) it is said, that not every plant and not every herb had yet grown (Gen. 2:5). God had spoken them into existence and they were all there in the potential of the kinds that appeared in the six days of creation. God manipulated, modified, relocated plants and animals when He "planted a garden eastward in Eden." What is involved in planting a garden?

In the days after the Fall, we were told by God the the earth would bring forth "thorns also and thistles" (Gen. 3:18). Here it seems to me, we have a verse telling us that new forms of the creation week kinds would appear. They were added to the Creation, but not as new kinds, rather as new forms of the same kinds.

Thorn and talon, fang and thistle are merely new forms of those Creation Week kinds. Predator and Prey were not new created "kinds," but they were the same "kinds" as the creation week, but expresses traits which had been present in the genes of those creation week kinds, but recessive. This means that these traits would now be brought forth from the already created kinds.

Serpents would be modified in form. Humans would be modified in form. They would now bring forth new forms of the Human kind - sinners.

The question here is about the time frame for the fossils that are found all over the earth in thousands of feet of strata, from mountain tops to ocean depths. When and how were these fossils formed?

In the secular mainstream, it is believed that the fossils have been formed since more than three billion years ago, in the Arachaean Eon, up until more recently in the Holocene Epoch of a mere 10,000 years ago.

The great abundance of fossils all over the earth must be accounted for in a span of time amounting to more than three billion years according to all scientists who do not embrace the biblical narrative of an earth that was created just 6000 years ago. A great many Christians do not believe the earth is young precisely because they see no way to account for the hundreds of layers of strata in thousands of feet of sedimentary rock. So they resort to a novel interpretation of the Bible in which they endeavor to somehow make the narrative of Genesis jive with their understanding of supposed incontrovertible evidence in the geology of the earth.

For those of us who embrace the revelation of about 6000 years as factual, and not mythology, how do we account for the layer upon layer of sediments and how do we account for the trillions of fossils in the earth?

Jim I have no real solid answer for your questions but when I read an article about the ice cores, there were dark and light cores that represented more than one core layer per year.  SO here is my question completely off the wall, could there have been some yearly or every two years or so cataclysmic thing that affected the earths sedimentary layers? Esepcially if I take a tupperware of sand and fill with water and rock back and forth I can not get layers of sediment to stay cohesive or to mound up? 

Jim B. said, "For those of us who embrace the revelation of about 6000 years as factual, and not mythology, how do we account for the layer upon layer of sediments and how do we account for the trillions of fossils in the earth?"

From the deepest layer to the top layer of the geologic column, these layer spread uniformally across the surface of the planet. Your tupperware container is  now a ball with mud mixing all across its circumfence over and over again. The ball is spinning and the mud is sloshing all around as a result of eruptions and crust bottoming out. That didn't happen again and again, because the separated soil have now lithofied and would necessarily have to be "Reliquified" in order to set up the scenario once more, besides, it would kill everything that live on land.

Wait Richard---what mechanism laid down these layers?  IF it was the flood, then fine, but its not clear what your actually saying or assuming.  Also you do not speak to the amount of fossils that are clearly distributed all through the sediments not just one layer????

"The ball is spinning and the mud is sloshing all around as a result of eruptions and crust bottoming out."

Will you please explain this mechanism in more detail and not assume that we understand what your saying..because I don't see your explanation as being any better, but we all observe sediments with fossils, no doubt?

Lou Hamby said:

Jim I have no real solid answer for your questions but when I read an article about the ice cores, there were dark and light cores that represented more than one core layer per year.

Ice cores article? And the dates revealed by ice cores whether from the Andes or Greenland or Antarctica always present themselves as factual actual irrefutable tens of thousands of years, well beyond the actual factual math of the Bible. Which will we chose to accept? And which well we choose to adapt, modify, adjust and re-interpret?

 SO here is my question completely off the wall, could there have been some yearly or every two years or so cataclysmic thing that affected the earths sedimentary layers?

So rather than the SINGLE, never before seen and never again repeated event that the Bible DOES reveal and narrate we are now going to imagine annual global cataclysmic things? A bit of a stretch for me?

Esepcially if I take a tupperware of sand and fill with water and rock back and forth I can not get layers of sediment to stay cohesive or to mound up?

How do we account for trillions of fossils in thousands of feet of strata found all over the world from pole to pole and from mountain top to ocean depths? The layers do not appear in a randomly shaken tupperware container because apparently this "experiment" does not illustrate well whatever mechanisms produce the layers that we DO actually witness on the surface of the earth all around the world. Not there in Tupperware, but they are there in an earth that has been here for only 6000 years. How did the layers get in the earth?

Good question Jim, any answers for my coal beds?  We can't deny the obvious sedimentary layers.. You know Jim God might have used tupperware, except his works and mine don't......HA!  So the question here is are the fossils a product of one and only one mechanism, or are their other possible explanations as to how layers were formed....:0)

One point that I would like to have you clear up, and hopefully others as well.  Is there any possibility that "a" pre-flood 

mechanism could be responsible for some of this since all layers do not contain fossils, some are vertical other horizontal, and so for the sake of discussion all inferences with respect to this topic should be post-flood?  

Information on ice cores - see www.icr.org/article/are-polar-ice-sheets-only-4500-years-old/     Also you may find its footnoted articles from Creation ExNihilo Technical Journal at www.creation.com.  Oard also wrote an ICR technical monograph published in 2005 titled The Frozen Record.  Until I read through it (almost 200 pages!) I did not understand how much the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian model influenced the data interpretation.   Also very interesting that data can be used to support only a few thousand years worth of ice sheet movement. (In the monograph under 'The Creation-Flood Model Is More Likely.")

Lou H. said, "Will you please explain this mechanism in more detail and not assume that we understand what your saying..because I don't see your explanation as being any better, but we all observe sediments with fossils, no doubt?"

Well, if the entire globe is covered with water and all the elements were in suspension as mud, and the earth it rotating, so this mud slurry thousands of feet deep it moving acroos the face of the planet. I believe the slurry would be flowing from West to East, just as the atmosphere does. Is that true?

So to me, it seems logical that anything and everything, is either floating or somewhere in that mud, once it sinks.

With our CGI technology, it would be great fun if there was a video made about how the flood may have been experienced, not only by Noah, but by the critters in all layers, as they were being depositted. Highlighting the Maelstroms that must have created those bone yards that we find, and whether they occurred regularily or only after the waters assuaged.

I hope this was an adequate clarification.  :)

If not in the Flood, where and how did water-formed fossils originate?

Jim, please define a fossil and how (chemically and mechanically) it is formed. Thank you .. John

John W. Coons said:

Jim, please define a fossil and how (chemically and mechanically) it is formed. Thank you .. John

Sorry John, I could only quote a common dictionary. I am not a scientist. I am only a Hebrew teacher, and Bible Scholar, but first and foremost I just want to be alive unto God, and not a fossil myself. Hehheeh.

Here is something from American Heritage Dictionary.

FOSSIL: The remains or imprint of an organism from a previous geologic time. A fossil can consist of the preserved tissues of an organism, as when encased in amber, ice, or pitch, or more commonly of the hardened relic of such tissues, as when organic matter is replaced by dissolved minerals. Hardened fossils are often found in layers of sedimentary rock and along the beds of rivers that flow through them.

Since this thread was started by me, then I would like to suggest that we use the term "fossil" alone to refer to the replacement varieties - which are most commonly called "fossils" in all the literature - those hardened relic formed when the ORGANIC MATTER IS REPLACED BY DISSOLVED MINERALS. If we speak of imprint fossils, let us always identify them with that specificity. If we speak of forms preserved in Amber or ice or permafrost, then let us always identify them as such. But the stand alone term "fossil" will always refer to fossil in this most common sense. Then if we mean fossils in the all-inclusive sense, let us so-specify with language like, "fossil in general."

How are fossils formed?

Conditions conducive to the formation of fossils include quick burial in moist sediment or other material that tends to prevent weathering and to exclude oxygen and bacteria, thereby preventing decay. This is by far the most common means of fossil production over all, including all of the other specific forms. The replacement fossils are exact reproductions by replacement of both external and internal structures.

Fossil fuels are not included as fossils for purposes of our discussion, since there is no visible or recognizable relic to indicate the form or nature of the animals or plants that were the source of the substance.

Non-replacement fossils are often later (in uniformitarian chronological schemes), and feature the preservation of actual organic remains, as those in tar-pits, those in perma-frost, ice, peat, or amber. A few are preserved in volcanic ash, but as often as not, ash burials result in the incineration of the organic remains, leaving behind an "impression" in the form of a void, which is discovered in is details by filling the void with plaster.

Another intriguing phenomena with fossils is the fact that some which are supposedly fifty or one hundred million years old, still appear to have organic material within them! After all these supposed millions of years the organic material is still not replaced by minerals! For example there is a good bit of hemming and hawing going on amongst the evolution camp when some forms of organic material were found deep within the structure of a heavy leg bone of a dinosaur!

The coal bed fossils are often impressions, but there are some replacement samples, where all of the organic material is entirely converted to a form of Carbon.

Cavity molds are fossils in rocks that do not preserve the internal structure of the original specimen. The dead creature was buried and rock hardened around it, but water percolating through the mineral dissolved OUT the organic remains entirely, but the hollow that was left, the cavity was then subsequently filled with sometimes with sediments seeping in through cracks that formed later. Other times, only the void remains, which the fossil hunters then fill with plaster to create a representation of what had once been within that rock.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Resources

follow us on Twitter

© 2014   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service