Why Are There Fossils?

[Phillip Diller]

Since the time of Lyell the dogma of geology has been the concept of uniformitarianism, best expressed by the motto "The present is the key to the past". Sometimes, however, people grab hold of something that they think is a life-preserver, only to find out that it is an anchor. At least one of the reasons for the adoption of uniformitarianism is that it was thought that it would disprove the idea that the Earth is only thousands of years old, thereby relegating the Bible to the category of mythology. After all, the age of the Earth is a decisive issue in the debate between Creation and evolution. If the Earth is young, evolution is not an option, and if the Earth is billions of years old then a literal rendering of the Scriptures is untenable.

So, here's the first question that arises: why do we still have strata containing fossils. Exposed rock erodes at an average rate of about 40 feet per million years, and by uniformiatarian reasoning all present continental land masses would be reduced to sea level in less than 50 million years. And yet we have intact strata containing fossils supposedly 65 million years old. If erosion is out-stripping uplift why are there any fossils at all.

More on this subject later.

Phillip

 

[timtofly]

The answer is water.

 

[Phillip Diller]

Your response is more than a little ambiguous. I understand that the strata are composed of water-laid sediments, but also that water is the most destructive force on Earth to the sedimentary layers. I also understand that rocks that are eroding today provide the particles for sedimentary deposits forming now. But the question remains, if erosion is happening faster than deposition why do we still have fossil-bearing strata that are claimed to be 65 million years old and older? The sediments that are accumulating in the ocean basins today happen much too slowly to trap and preserve the remains of living things for future fossilization. So, what exactly is your point?

Phillip

 

[Marooncat79]

Since the time of Lyell the dogma of geology has been the concept of uniformitarianism, best expressed by the motto "The present is the key to the past". Sometimes, however, people grab hold of something that they think is a life-preserver, only to find out that it is an anchor. At least one of the reasons for the adoption of uniformitarianism is that it was thought that it would disprove the idea that the Earth is only thousands of years old, thereby relegating the Bible to the category of mythology. After all, the age of the Earth is a decisive issue in the debate between Creation and evolution. If the Earth is young, evolution is not an option, and if the Earth is billions of years old then a literal rendering of the Scriptures is untenable.

So, here's the first question that arises: why do we still have strata containing fossils. Exposed rock erodes at an average rate of about 40 feet per million years, and by uniformiatarian reasoning all present continental land masses would be reduced to sea level in less than 50 million years. And yet we have intact strata containing fossils supposedly 65 million years old. If erosion is out-stripping uplift why are there any fossils at all.

More on this subject later.

Phillip

Why The flood in Noahs day

Fossils are a testimony to death and destruction from the Noah Flood not the origin of life

Uniformitarianism is not true- floods volcanic activity and earthquakes beg to differ

Exposed rock degrades? What about the lava fields in Hawaii? Its supposedly been 25 million yrs yet it looks like it happened last week

 

[Marooncat79]

You need to read The Collapse of Evolution by Scott Huse

 

[timtofly]

Your response is more than a little ambiguous. I understand that the strata are composed of water-laid sediments, but also that water is the most destructive force on Earth to the sedimentary layers. I also understand that rocks that are eroding today provide the particles for sedimentary deposits forming now. But the question remains, if erosion is happening faster than deposition why do we still have fossil-bearing strata that are claimed to be 65 million years old and older? The sediments that are accumulating in the ocean basins today happen much too slowly to trap and preserve the remains of living things for future fossilization. So, what exactly is your point?

Phillip

Water after the Flood built up all those layers rapidly and took some layers away rapidly many times over. The Mediterranean itself is claimed to have emptied totally and filled back up 7 times since the Flood. Egypt recorded this displacement the last few times as the people of the sea coming and going with all of their possessions at least two times.

The US was under water several times.

Perfect humans themselves lived on the earth over 2000 years. We have no clue how much fun they had with water.

China was the one in ancient history who dealt with flooding for hundreds of years as they, as stone and iron age people, had to keep it under control. They recorded more about it, than those in the ME.

That is about all that I have discovered in reading old historical accounts.

 

[Marooncat79]

Perfect humans themselves lived on the earth over 2000 years. We have no clue how much fun they had with water.

What do you mean by this?

 

[timtofly]

Perfect humans themselves lived on the earth over 2000 years. We have no clue how much fun they had with water.

What do you mean by this?

God rested the 7th day. Creation did not.
Genesis 2:1-6
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 For in the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, rested from all his work, which he had made.
3 So God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work, which God created and made."

THEN:

4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created, in the day, that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field, before it grew, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, neither was there a man to till the ground,
6 But a mist went up from the earth, and watered all the earth.

Verses 4-6 is not the first 6 days. It is what happens in one day, identified as a Lord's Day. God did not create, God allowed creation to generate. That is what 4-6 declares; the generations of life on earth during the 7th day of God's rest. These perfect years were hallowed as a remembrance in a seventh day of rest, one earth day, called the Sabbath. The Lord, the Word, did make creation go on regenerating, not a creation act of God. It was 1000 years just like the last 1000 years will be a Lord's Day with The Word, Jesus Christ, the Lord once again making and replenishing the earth.

It was hid until the last decade. It is revealed now to those willing to give up this earth is a round ball in Satan's virtual reality of a a fake 14B universe. Einstein understood earth as spacetime, but no one else could figure it out, and Einstein probably would not have convinced anyone a vast universe did not exist, neither is there a solar system. God put two lights in the sky on the 4th day, not a sun and moon, which has been the wrong interpretation for thousands of years. God did not lie, humans misunderstood.

Within a year, it will not matter any way what humans think they know. God Himself will be in full view, and the virtual universe will be wiped from human memory. It is not just one simple answer. It is understanding Genesis through the book of Revelation, and seeing the proper interpretation of Genesis. Between Adam and the fall is 1500 years. Add to that 1000 and you get 2500. Some claim and there are accounts of Gilgamesh, Marduk, Nimrod, who could have been Satan and pre-flood humans still in charge of the nations post flood until the birth of Abraham. From the Fall to Abraham was a 2000 year period where the Nations ran the earth. It was not until about 600 years after God called Abraham that the House of Jacob entered the Promised Land. The battle of Jericho, ended the nations and the Jews were the one's allegedly in charge. That did not ever go well, and the nations over ran Israel until 70AD. Jesus ended and started one age, and the church age with the act of Atonement on the cross. It has been 1990 years, and the church was taken over by Satan faster than Israel lost their kingdom.

 

[Marooncat79]

^um, no not really. Not even at all

God created in 6 -24/hr periods and then rested.

Why not accept what almost all Christians have accepted over 2000 yrs?

Your comment has problems on multiplt levels. Example. The Israelites entered Canaan around 1410 bc. Yes, again there is great controversy but that is the historical view not the late view

How do you know that there was 1400 yrs between the creation of Adam and the fall? Where is that spelled out?

You have a seriously deficient view of Gods Word

 

[timtofly]

^um, no not really. Not even at all

God created in 6 -24/hr periods and then rested.

Why not accept what almost all Christians have accepted over 2000 yrs?

Your comment has problems on multiplt levels. Example. The Israelites entered Canaan around 1410 bc. Yes, again there is great controversy but that is the historical view not the late view

How do you know that there was 1400 yrs between the creation of Adam and the fall? Where is that spelled out?

You have a seriously deficient view of Gods Word

No, there was 1400 years between Jericho and Jesus Christ.

The Garden was placed 1000 years after the 6th day. Adam was 130 when Seth was born. In a Lord's Day there is a notation about dying at 100 being a curse. 30 years after Adam was placed in the Garden was the fall. 100 years later Seth was born. Jesus was 30 years old when he was baptized. Adam only lived in the Garden for 30 years. Adam was created on day six and was 1000 years old when placed in the Garden. For all those Calvanist and no free will people, did God force Adam to disobey at 30, and that is why at 30 God was pleased with Jesus Christ? Adam was not given a son until after the 100 years of being cursed as a sinner. Adam did not die, so God blessed them with Seth.

I do not accept the deception of Satan in 2 Thessalonians 2. Paul said it was already at work. Satan was chums with the Greeks and especially the science that started the notion the earth was round. Which Christians do you make reference to? The whore of Revelation and the church of Rome the abode of Satan. Or the church that the RCC martyred for thousands of years? I choose God, not Satan.

 

[Marooncat79]

The Biblical Dates of the Exodus | Biblical Historical Context

 

[Marooncat79]

Until Higher Criticisms prevalence the date of the Exodus was around 1440-50 or so. They entered the Land around 1405 or so

The rise of German Criticism changed things. See attachment

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

...If erosion is out-stripping uplift....

The key word here is "if." Has this actually been demonstrated to be so everywhere?
Hint: The answer is, no, it has not been demonstrated. This is not a good argument.

 

[Phillip Diller]

Why The flood in Noahs day

Fossils are a testimony to death and destruction from the Noah Flood not the origin of life

Uniformitarianism is not true- floods volcanic activity and earthquakes beg to differ

Exposed rock degrades? What about the lava fields in Hawaii? Its supposedly been 25 million yrs yet it looks like it happened last week

Phillip: You are, of course, exactly right. Only a global flood can account for sedimentary layers, some of them hundreds of feet thick, of the same age (according to evolution) on different continents. And speaking of lava fields, it is interesting that samples from Hawaii (known to be only about 200 years old) and New Zealand (from an eruption about 70 years ago) all register ages in the millions of years to billions of years. It's amazing that scientists give any credence to these radiometric dating mechanisms since there are many of them and they all give different ages for the same rock. The power of a Godless worldview causes them to accept contradictory data and reject the logical and reasonable explanation. Why not just follow the facts where they lead and accept the truth? But that would mean having to acknowledge the Creator, and then they would lose their research grants. God is not allowed in science.

Phillip

 

[Van]

After all, the age of the Earth is a decisive issue in the debate between Creation and evolution. If the Earth is young, evolution is not an option, and if the Earth is billions of years old then a literal rendering of the Scriptures is untenable.

Using the idea that the "creation days" were of indeterminate length, the Bible can be understood as consistent with an old Universe and Earth. However, Adam cannot be said to be more than about seven thousand years ago, because the bible gives every generation between Adam and Jesus. Either the Bible is wrong, or the science of dating artifacts created by people capable of abstract thinking, unlike primates, is wrong. The "missing generations" argument (Ross, etc) can push back Adam only by a few hundred years, not 60,000 or more.

My solution is to accept Job 38 and the answer that we were not there, and therefore we do not know.

 

[Phillip Diller]

Using the idea that the "creation days" were of indeterminate length, the Bible can be understood as consistent with an old Universe and Earth. However, Adam cannot be said to be more than about seven thousand years ago, because the bible gives every generation between Adam and Jesus. Either the Bible is wrong, or the science of dating artifacts created by people capable of abstract thinking, unlike primates, is wrong. The "missing generations" argument (Ross, etc) can push back Adam only by a few hundred years, not 60,000 or more.

My solution is to accept Job 38 and the answer that we were not there, and therefore we do not know.

Phillip: Our goal should not be to reconcile the Bible to the evolutionary time-frame. The Hebrew "yom" is used hundreds of times in the Old Testament and typically denotes a normal 24 hour day. In the Genesis account of Creation the use of "yom" as a normal day is further emphasized by the delimiter "the evening and the morning", clarifying that these days were comprised by one period of dark and a period of light, not indefinite periods of time. The day-age theory runs completely counter to the declaration of the Apostle Paul in Romans 5:12 that there was no death before Adam sinned. The day-age theory, the gap-theory and progressive creationism are all unwise and unnecessary compromises with godless evolutionism. Believers are not called to bargain with atheistic worldviews but to stand for Truth of the Word of God. There is no scientific proof that the Earth is billions of years old, or that life came about by chance chemical reactions. Psalm 19 says that the "heavens declare the glory of God", and accepting the evolutionary timescale only opens the door for three-fold god naturalism to steal that glory and give it to the god of chance. I wont go there and you shouldn't either. Real science is on our side and we honor God by believing the plain teaching of His Word. When Truth compromises with error, error wins.

Phillip

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Phillip: Our goal should not be to reconcile the Bible to the evolutionary time-frame. The Hebrew "yom" is used hundreds of times in the Old Testament and typically denotes a normal 24 hour day. In the Genesis account of Creation the use of "yom" as a normal day is further emphasized by the delimiter "the evening and the morning", clarifying that these days were comprised by one period of dark and a period of light, not indefinite periods of time. The day-age theory runs completely counter to the declaration of the Apostle Paul in Romans 5:12 that there was no death before Adam sinned. The day-age theory, the gap-theory and progressive creationism are all unwise and unnecessary compromises with godless evolutionism. Believers are not called to bargain with atheistic worldviews but to stand for Truth of the Word of God. There is no scientific proof that the Earth is billions of years old, or that life came about by chance chemical reactions. Psalm 19 says that the "heavens declare the glory of God", and accepting the evolutionary timescale only opens the door for three-fold god naturalism to steal that glory and give it to the god of chance. I wont go there and you shouldn't either. Real science is on our side and we honor God by believing the plain teaching of His Word. When Truth compromises with error, error wins.

Phillip

It is error to admit materialists are on more secure footing with time or chance.

There is no such thing as an evolutionary timescale/timeframe. Time doesn't do anything. There is no such thing as chance chemical reactions. Chance doesn't do anything. Relying on time or chance is not merely wishful thinking, it cannot be thought thinking at all. It is avoidance.

The argument needs to be pushed back to the beginning. Atheistic evolutionism relies on agents that aren't—time and chance—but more importantly depends on elements already created. The naturalist must demonstrate who created creation.

They cannot be merely dismissive by asking, 'Who created God?' They must answer as well. Nature is their own creator, so we ask, 'Who created your creator?' There is no changeless eternal material creator. However, there is the changeless eternal God who is Spirit.

 

[Phillip Diller]

It is error to admit materialists are on more secure footing with time or chance.

There is no such thing as an evolutionary timescale/timeframe. Time doesn't do anything. There is no such thing as chance chemical reactions. Chance doesn't do anything. Relying on time or chance is not merely wishful thinking, it cannot be thought thinking at all. It is avoidance.

The argument needs to be pushed back to the beginning. Atheistic evolutionism relies on agents that aren't—time and chance—but more importantly depends on elements already created. The naturalist must demonstrate who created creation.

They cannot be merely dismissive by asking, 'Who created God?' They must answer as well. Nature is their own creator, so we ask, 'Who created your creator?' There is no changeless eternal material creator. However, there is the changeless eternal God who is Spirit.

Phillip: Well said! I always remember the quote from Martin Harwit, an astronomer and one time director of the National Air and Space Museum: "The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form." Evolutionists can't score a run, they can't even get to first base.

Phillip

 

[Van]

Phillip: Our goal should not be to reconcile the Bible to the evolutionary time-frame. The Hebrew "yom" is used hundreds of times in the Old Testament and typically denotes a normal 24 hour day. In the Genesis account of Creation the use of "yom" as a normal day is further emphasized by the delimiter "the evening and the morning", clarifying that these days were comprised by one period of dark and a period of light, not indefinite periods of time. The day-age theory runs completely counter to the declaration of the Apostle Paul in Romans 5:12 that there was no death before Adam sinned. The day-age theory, the gap-theory and progressive creationism are all unwise and unnecessary compromises with godless evolutionism. Believers are not called to bargain with atheistic worldviews but to stand for Truth of the Word of God. There is no scientific proof that the Earth is billions of years old, or that life came about by chance chemical reactions. Psalm 19 says that the "heavens declare the glory of God", and accepting the evolutionary timescale only opens the door for three-fold god naturalism to steal that glory and give it to the god of chance. I wont go there and you shouldn't either. Real science is on our side and we honor God by believing the plain teaching of His Word. When Truth compromises with error, error wins.

Phillip

What did Adam eat before the fall? Plants? Did the plants die when eaten? We can agree there was no spiritual death before Adam. There was no "wages of sin" before Adam. I did not say the "Day-age" effort to reconcile scripture to the current scientific view was necessary, but I did say the 6 twenty-four hour creation week view was pretty much bullet proof.

Did you read Job 38 and accept that you do not know how God created the heavens and the earth?

 

[Phillip Diller]

What did Adam eat before the fall? Plants? Did the plants die when eaten? We can agree there was no spiritual death before Adam. There was no "wages of sin" before Adam. I did not say the "Day-age" effort to reconcile scripture to the current scientific view was necessary, but I did say the 6 twenty-four hour creation week view was pretty much bullet proof.

Did you read Job 38 and accept that you do not know how God created the heavens and the earth?

Phillip: Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden on the sixth day, the very day that they were created. They were given only the fruit of the trees for food. After the fall they were expelled from the garden and we're not told what they ate then, but we know that one of their sons raised livestock, perhaps sheep, and it's reasonable to assume that they ate them. As for the plants, obviously they die when they are picked and/or eaten. The Hebrews were forbidden to eat blood because, as the Scripture says, the life is in the blood. It seems very apparent that the "death" of a plant or its' fruit is not considered the same as the death of an animal or a person. As for Adam and Eve, physical and spiritual death happened at the same time. For their children and all mankind since we are born into this world already spiritually dead and in the process of dying physically.

I apologize if I seemed to be saying that you were promoting the Day-Age theory, but I know that many Christians do accept that concept - many I'm sure to avoid being criticized as some kind of religious fanatic. For me, anything other than a literal 6 day Creation detracts from God's glory. And yes, I am well acquainted with Job 38. Obviously, no man was here to be a witness to what God did, but we have His description of the Creation which is that He created the Earth and all the rest of the Creation in six regular days out of absolutely nothing. I know that science can't incorporate supernatural events into theory or testing, but they haven't provided any evidence for an alternative to the Creation account. On the contrary, much scientific evidence exists to challenge the evolutionary paradigm.

Phillip