Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Time For Class Proving Evolution

Fitting that the geological time scale is circling the drain here. That's nearly the entire foundation of evolution. And it's circular reasoning to boot. If a fossil was found in this srata that we deduce is 160 million years old, then the fossil has to be 160 million years old. What if the strata isn't that old? That is the fundamental difference between those that believe Genesis and those that do not.

Don't expect much to come of anyone that is unwilling to entertain the notion, but I placed a link below to some scientific assessments of the effects of the floodwaters on the geologic strata and the impacts on the appearance of age.

I spent some time studying the materials of these scientist some 30+ yrs ago. Not much has changed. I heard some of their students debate some evolutionists when in college and the poor evolutionists were no match at all.

Effects of the Draining Floodwaters

I think this post deserves a reread.

This is the part that I was hoping the thread would get to. It intrigues me, as I know very little of how staunch "creationists" explain things.

Allosaurus fossils have been found. There exist quite a few. If this fossil represents a created organism that was trapped and killed off in the flood event, then it must have existed alive just prior to the flood. Therefore the allosaurus was alive and well during human existence?

If so, why are there no first hand discussions / mentions in any books/bible of dealing with / living with of such a thoroughly amazing creature? Its a tough one to swallow. (substitute diplodicus if you like... )

You missed the Memo

Yea.

No! You are missing it by a lot. I don't discount the creation theory a bit. It fits nicely into our need to believe that there is something else out they is greater than man. Creation provides comfort, especially as we near death. I have taken a number of evaluation-based classes in collage ( I minored in Biology) and I have not ever had a Prof. that made any effort to suggest that a plant evolved into an animal, period.


The concept of peer reviewed studies and theories centers around that the theory is placed under scrutiny and examined to be dis-proven, not proven or supported. A second or 3rd or (4th.-1,00000th) examination may not be able to punch a hole in a theory but experiments do not work to prove or support a theory. The whole idea is to examine all angles and prove it wrong.


There is plenty of fossil evidence that supports the link that earlier species evolve over VERY LONG periods of geological time. The theory of evaluation is a leap of faith that the earth has been around for millions of years not less that 10,000 as bible stories would have you believe.


Remember that the Roman Catholic Church supports evaluation and it is taught in most catholic high schools. A friend of mine who is a Jesuit Brother explained it to me like this�The Catholic Church is an evolving church because our God is an evolving god.

Ignorance is something to attempt to educate yourself out of even if it means that you might evolve into something new and more complex. Now that is quite a concept!


I was born and raised a Catholic and my mother was a Republican State Committee member, I am recovering from both

Perhaps I was not suficently clear "gradual" and "sudden" depend on the time scale being used. Change in a species has to be gradual because each generation can only be a slightly modified version of the previous generation. If a species stays relatively unchanged for 5,000,000 years and significantly changes over 500,000 years, then on that scale 500,000 years is relatively sudden.

Here is Gould, himself had to say in Punctuated Equilibria, Eldredge & Gould, 1972.
From the Statement: (3) The theory of allopatric (or geographic) speciation suggests a different interpretation of paleontological data. If new species arise very rapidly in small, peripherally isolated populations, then the great expectation of insensibly graded fossil sequences is a chimera. A new species does not evolve in the area of its ancestors; it does not arise from the slow transformation of all its forbears. Many breaks in the fossil record are real.
(4) The history of life is more adequately represented by a picture of �punctuated equilibria� than by the notion of phyletic gradualism. The history of evolution is not one of stately unfolding, but a story of homeostatic equilibria, disturbed only �rarely� (i.e., rather often in the fullness of time) by rapid and episodic events of speciation.
From the final paragraph: The norm for a species or, by extension, a community is stability. Speciation is a rare and difficult event that punctuates a system in homeostatic equilibrium. That so uncommon and event should have produced such a wondrous array of living and fossil forms can only give strength to an old idea: paleontology deals with a phenomenon that belongs to it alone among the evolutionary sciences and that enlightens all its conclusions�time.

Eldredge and Gould were definitely not FOS but their ideas were quite controversial. Gould is a popular target for the common and dishonest practice of "quote mining". If I saw a quote by Gould, or any other prominent scientist, I would not pass it on before looking entire quote to confirm that it was not taken out of context to say something other than what its author meant to say. If you would care to read the whole thing, Punctuated Equilibria is easy to find on the net.

An old lady in our Sunday School class wears a big lapel pin that looks just like this.

Good question. It gets better though. Where did those creatures wind up after the flood? If Noah gathered 2 of each of these creatures onto the ark, then what happened? The assumption is that the creatures on the ark were not necessarily full grown.

Dr. Gish of ICR once published a book called "Tracking those Incredible Dinosaurs and the People Who Knew Them" It was in regard to tracks on the Paluxi River in Texas where it appeared that human tracks and large reptile tracks were at the same site. Later that was disputed and the tracks had deteriorated to the point that Dr. Gish removed that book from circulation because of the dispute. However, he always believed that those tracks were genuine and had degraded and to some extent, been vandalized.

Interestingly enough, this sauropod petroglyph in Utah shown below has been a source of contention since it's doubtful it was a self portrait. There are other petroglyphs where creatures resembling dinosaurs have been drawn in stone. This would have been after the flood.



Herodotus' wrote an account of Alexander the Great's story of a giant hissing beast that lived in a cave in India. Writings about Marco Polo suggest eye witness accounts as well as the legends from China and their dragons. And there was a story about a giant dragon like beast that had long horns much larger than an ox, perhaps resembling a triceratops that was killed near Nerluc, France in 1572. I could go on and on, but these are all anecdotal.

So why not the Bible? If the Bible contained everything that went on before the current era, it would be a very large book. But that isn't really the point of the Bible. It's more of a guide book to salvation.

However, there are some passages that elude to beasts, beginning with the creation of beasts, which isn't very telling, but it does distinguish them from cattle. But, there are others, for example, in the Book of Job, God is giving Job a bit of a Father-son chat. In Job 40:15-19 "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: . . . His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God." "Behemoth" is an English transliteration from the original Hebrew word. But that doesn't really describe anything we know of besides a sauropod of some sort. This is the only place that the word "behemoth" shows up in the Bible in this form, I think. The Book of Job, incidentally may very well be the oldest book of the Bible. In the Apocryphal books, there were stories of dragons being slain and the like as well. However, I haven't studied those much, being brought up as a baptist.

Guess they are going to clone a wooly mammoth here shortly. That's pretty cool.

It would seem not-impossible that there could be very large reptile holdovers into the human era, at least enough so that they'd enter the mythology.

I've been in sea-fossil beds at above 10,000 feet in New Mexico. That'd be some flood.

It was. It was world wide and lasted for thirteen months.

I suppose there's math out there to support enough water to flood to above 10,000 feet in New Mexico?

Last I heard that if all the ice on earth melted sea level would rise about 230 feet.

Dude, you read that silly schit and think it's profound? When this new critter pops on the scene, with all this new DNA, who and what is he gonna slap on the ass and say "who's yo Daddy" with? A she-critter would have to suddenly arise, at nearly the same moment in time, and she'd have to be ready to do the nasty, and we all know how problematic that can be.

ANYONE who's studied any REAL biology knows, that when you are dealing with populations that have shrunk to one mating pair, they are already extinct in a practical sense, the games over for them.

Also, instead of studying marx at his father's knee, dear old daddy Gould should have taken his ass to a mule farm, so he wouldn't be stupid enough to concoct silly schit like this.

10-4 there.

Killed a bunch of 'smart' suckers too.

Can you imagine having to care for it? No one has much of an idea of their diet except for samples that were found indicating alpine type forage in their mouths and undigested in the stomachs.

I cannot imagine the clamor if it were to die as a calf though?



There is evidence that seems to support that. Some of the petroglyphs could have been stories of stories, I suppose. I've seen some petroglyphs near Dinosaur Nat'l Monument that just make ya' stand there with your mouth open. Not sure what they were trying to convey. It seems too far north for peyote, but maybe the traded for the stuff.



It's quite an eye opener. Check out these links.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/whale-fossils-found-driest-desert-earth-154935450.html

http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_11.asp

From the last link...

"Fossilized Sea Shells near Himalayan Peaks?
When archaeologists found the fossilized remains of ancient sea-creatures near the peaks of the Himalayas they were, understandably, puzzled. Intriguing questions were raised. Was there once an ocean or other large body of water at the top of this enormous mountain range? Unlikely.

Had the entire planet, Himalayas and all, at some point in Earth�s long history, been submerged underwater? Possibly - but highly improbable. No theory could fully explain this apparent paradox. Until the theory of plate tectonics was put forth."

Could it have been the Genesis Flood...well??? Naahhh.


ICR folks have some articles regarding rapid upheaval and tectonic plates shifting much faster due to runaway subduction of the silicate layer that explains the Genesis Flood description. In the Biblical account, there was a lot of water trapped beneath the earth's surface. When that containment ruptured, the earth flooded rapidly as well as the rain from the firmament above, which may have been foreign to folks prior to the flood. The resulting volcanic activity emitting the particulates in the air that provided the condensation nuclei to cause the firmament above to collapse seems to make some sense to me anyway.

Thank you.

Eyeball, that is damn funny. Where in heck did you find that---or did you write it yourself? If the latter, then you've got talent!

Thanks, I've had me a moment or two. Especially after enough crown and creek.