I was delivering a training course to some customers and when I met them at Breakfast this morning, they were discussing the Origin of Species. Turns out that one of them is a true YEC: the Earth is 600 years old, global flood and all that. Stunning!
He came out with a couple of things: chickens and hard egg shells (not a huge problem) and fossilised tree running through thousands of years worth of strata. That one I have heard before but have not found an explanation that I feel is satisfactory. I've done the talk-origins route but don't feel that it actually explains the phenomenon. Can anybody explain it in simple terms for me?
The argument goes that these tree fossils have been found buried in-situ but crossing many (hundreds?) of the sedimentary layers supposedly laid down on a yearly (or longer?) basis. Such finds seem to be a problem for using the sedimentary layers for dating. If each layer is laid down over years or longer, how would the dead tree have stayed in it's position for such a period, potentially hundreds of years. Their answer is that the layers were all laid down at once during the great flood.
If they were laid down during the flood, then all such examples would be found at roughly the same 'age' or depth of sediment. Presumably this is not the case but I don't know. I also don't know how they could have remained intact over such periods. Do they really span that many layers?
Started writing this in Spirituality but now I think maybe Science is the best place for it.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinScience is the best place for it. This way we can all laugh at Our Dumb World.
I was delivering a training course to some customers and when I met them at Breakfast this morning, they were discussing the Origin of Species. Turns out that one of them is a true YEC: the Earth is 600 years old, global flood and all that. Stunning!
He came out with a couple of things: chickens and hard egg shells (not a huge problem) and fossilised tree ...[text shortened]... s in Spirituality but now I think maybe Science is the best place for it.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinDoes the word 'irrational' come to mind?
I was delivering a training course to some customers and when I met them at Breakfast this morning, they were discussing the Origin of Species. Turns out that one of them is a true YEC: the Earth is 600 years old, global flood and all that. Stunning!
He came out with a couple of things: chickens and hard egg shells (not a huge problem) and fossilised tree ...[text shortened]... s in Spirituality but now I think maybe Science is the best place for it.
--- Penguin.
I met a live one too. the whole bit, 6000 year old earth, men walked with dinosaurs, etc.
I asked him how they managed to get T Rex and and Brontosaurus in the Ark, he says: They just took young ones. OMG.
One argument I used on him, see the moon, see all those craters? If it all happened in 6000 years, why is the moon not red hot still, considering the oldest crater was less than 6000 years old, the amount of heat that would vaporize thousands of square miles of lunar surface would not have had time to cool down much in that little amount of time. That was over his head, dull glassy eyed stare.
Originally posted by PenguinIt's easy to explain if it's a root. They do have this habit of digging down into deeper dirt.
I was delivering a training course to some customers and when I met them at Breakfast this morning, they were discussing the Origin of Species. Turns out that one of them is a true YEC: the Earth is 600 years old, global flood and all that. Stunning!
He came out with a couple of things: chickens and hard egg shells (not a huge problem) and fossilised tree ...[text shortened]... s in Spirituality but now I think maybe Science is the best place for it.
--- Penguin.
The ultimate answer of all observations that contradict 6000 year earths is "God created it that way, he is allmighty." (GCITW,HIA)
What about the radiological evidence? GCITW,HIA
And why is there kangarus still in Australia, didn't they drown in the flood? GCITW,HIA
Why don't we find anything in the ice layers in deep Greenland? GCITW,HIA
What about observatins of stars and galaxies further away than only 6000 light years? GCITW,HIA
etc, etc, etc...
Creationists are indeed anti-science.
(Please, keep this thread scientific. Don't use bible quotes as retorical ammunition. This is the Science Forum.)
Originally posted by PenguinLet me know if anyone actually touches the question you asked.
I was delivering a training course to some customers and when I met them at Breakfast this morning, they were discussing the Origin of Species. Turns out that one of them is a true YEC: the Earth is 600 years old, global flood and all that. Stunning!
He came out with a couple of things: chickens and hard egg shells (not a huge problem) and fossilised tree ...[text shortened]... s in Spirituality but now I think maybe Science is the best place for it.
--- Penguin.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat about fossil trees, like in Monument Valley? If those trees fossilized in 6000 years why don't we see almost fossilized trees now? Why only completely fossilized trees, no intermediates. I would think if it only took, say 3000 years to fossilize trees we would see a heck of a lot more of them, but why only in a few places and no almost fossilized trees? Since we have trees that we think are 6000 years old by the ring count, why aren't there fossilized dead ones of the same age nearby?
Let me know if anyone actually touches the question you asked.
Kelly
For instance, something I saw with my own two eyes, in Seneca State Park in Maryland, there is stream, and in that stream was fossilized PALM trees, they were clearly fossilized and clearly had the regular palm tree structure but quite fossilized for sure, solid rock. I know, I took a whack at one with a hammer and it was sure enough rock but clearly a fossilized tree. There were no half fossilized trees nearby, only the fully fossilized ones in the stream bed. How does a creationist explain that?
Originally posted by sonhouseGCITW,HIA 😕
What about fossil trees, like in Monument Valley? If those trees fossilized in 6000 years why don't we see almost fossilized trees now? Why only completely fossilized trees, no intermediates. I would think if it only took, say 3000 years to fossilize trees we would see a heck of a lot more of them, but why only in a few places and no almost fossilized trees ...[text shortened]... 000 years old by the ring count, why aren't there fossilized dead ones of the same age nearby?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungReply to your other post.
It's easy to explain if it's a root. They do have this habit of digging down into deeper dirt.
There was nothing in my statement about being oppressed, and
you do realize what he said was,
"The argument goes that these tree fossils have been found buried in-situ but crossing many (hundreds?) of the sedimentary layers supposedly laid down on a yearly (or longer?) basis."
Your answer to that was not about the whole tree dug down into dirt,
and then got fossilized itself, or it was fossilized and then dug itself
down into the dirt, your simple answer can go a number of ways.
Was it that you thought it was only the root that did that, and you
did not read what was said? I didn't think you were addressing the
issue brought forward either, since you only spoke about the root
when he was speaking about trees.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseSo your answer to this problem is to side step it to another?
What about fossil trees, like in Monument Valley? If those trees fossilized in 6000 years why don't we see almost fossilized trees now? Why only completely fossilized trees, no intermediates. I would think if it only took, say 3000 years to fossilize trees we would see a heck of a lot more of them, but why only in a few places and no almost fossilized trees ...[text shortened]... 000 years old by the ring count, why aren't there fossilized dead ones of the same age nearby?
How fast can you fossilize a tree you ever seen it done?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou don't 'see it done', it's done by nature, underground. My point is, if the earth is only 6000 years old, there should be lots of partially fossilized trees and we don't see them. We know it takes a lot longer than a thousand years because we have samples we know to be that old, buried and they are not starting the fossilization process. There are wooden ships sunk in deep water just now being found that are not fossilized and we know from historical records the age of the ships, some over two thousand years old, dated from coins found on-board not even needing carbon dating because the coins peg the age, and they are not even close to starting to fossilize. So how do creationists account for fossil trees?
So your answer to this problem is to side step it to another?
How fast can you fossilize a tree you ever seen it done?
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseTthey had to be in the proper condintions for the proper time, and later
You don't 'see it done', it's done by nature, underground. My point is, if the earth is only 6000 years old, there should be lots of partially fossilized trees and we don't see them. We know it takes a lot longer than a thousand years because we have samples we know to be that old, buried and they are not starting the fossilization process. There are wooden ...[text shortened]... e not even close to starting to fossilize. So how do creationists account for fossil trees?
if they were uncovered were exposed. The reason the proper time is
important is that if they did not remain under those conditions they
became rotten and turned to dust.
Kelly
Originally posted by PenguinFirst things first. Let's see proof of this fossilised tree that runs through thousands of years worth of strata.
I was delivering a training course to some customers and when I met them at Breakfast this morning, they were discussing the Origin of Species. Turns out that one of them is a true YEC: the Earth is 600 years old, global flood and all that. Stunning!
He came out with a couple of things: chickens and hard egg shells (not a huge problem) and fossilised tree ...[text shortened]... s in Spirituality but now I think maybe Science is the best place for it.
--- Penguin.