Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Trace fossils, How do creatioist account

autodidact
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 9:33:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I just recently learned about trace fossils in a few of the layers of the grand canyon, to me this would seem counter intuitive to the biblical flood account.
So I have 2 questions
What are some creditable site where i may actually see the information I noted above since were I saw this claim had no references.
For those creationist, how do you explain these trace fossils?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 9:53:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
God put them to test your faith because he is a shallow, self-centred, (any prefix you want) icidal freak.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 10:18:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/13/2013 9:53:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
God put them to test your faith because he is a shallow, self-centred, (any prefix you want) icidal freak.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 6:20:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/13/2013 9:33:34 PM, autodidact wrote:
I just recently learned about trace fossils in a few of the layers of the grand canyon, to me this would seem counter intuitive to the biblical flood account.
So I have 2 questions
What are some creditable site where i may actually see the information I noted above since were I saw this claim had no references.
For those creationist, how do you explain these trace fossils?

The same way they explain regular fossils, in the deceptive clothing of "Creation science" by fitting the facts to the theory, which isn't science, science fits the theory to the facts.

Ina misguided effort to defend Christianity, they would postulate a deceptive God who would create Man with a rational mind, a sense of wonder, and seeking intellect, while creating a universe with the false appearance of tremendous age. Unfortunately, his postulate does more harm to Christianity than the theory of evolution could ever do.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
autodidact
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 3:32:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 2:24:42 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
Your best of asking an intelegent young creationist like muted.

1) God.

2) The Flood.

If your really interested here are some links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org...


http://www.answersingenesis.org...

http://www.apologeticspress.org...

http://www.trueorigin.org...

http://creation.com...

https://www.google.com...

http://www.icr.org...

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com...

Good luck.

.... um... asked for creditable links...i guess i should have been more clear, creditable links to the existence of these trace fossils. the question for te creationist was for them, to answer in their own words besides the sited linked to are not seen as creditable.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 5:16:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 3:32:11 PM, autodidact wrote:
At 1/14/2013 2:24:42 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
Your best of asking an intelegent young creationist like muted.

1) God.

2) The Flood.

If your really interested here are some links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org...


http://www.answersingenesis.org...

http://www.apologeticspress.org...

http://www.trueorigin.org...

http://creation.com...

https://www.google.com...

http://www.icr.org...

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com...

Good luck.

.... um... asked for creditable links...i guess i should have been more clear, creditable links to the existence of these trace fossils. the question for te creationist was for them, to answer in their own words besides the sited linked to are not seen as creditable.

Not sure about the trace fossiles, but I would take a look at AIG.

Most of it is not scientifically valid; but to come to this conclusion you need to take a look at it, obviously side by side with talkorigins or the like. It is actually quite an eye opener reading through some of it.
autodidact
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 11:32:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 5:16:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

It is actually quite an eye opener reading through some of it.

Only if I need to sharpen up on spotting fallacious reasoning. Been there, done that.
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 2:18:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, the flood occurred in Israel. Why do fossils in the Grand Canyon have any impact on its validity?
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 4:52:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As 1DA has mentioned me, I will respond. Firstly, there seems to be an assumption that the Flood would wipe out all traces of biological activity. By the very same reasoning that this assumption was reached, we can also assume that corrosion due to time would have wiped out trace activities.

Actually, the facts are much more in accord with a Biblical Flood than with consensus geology. Why is this so? In this case of trace fossils from Spain (http://geology.geoscienceworld.org...), where trace fossils clearly show (as well as contradict the assumption begun by the OP) that trace fossils can exist in fast currents. They even had fossilized ripples.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 7:52:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 4:52:33 AM, Muted wrote:
As 1DA has mentioned me, I will respond. Firstly, there seems to be an assumption that the Flood would wipe out all traces of biological activity. By the very same reasoning that this assumption was reached, we can also assume that corrosion due to time would have wiped out trace activities.

Actually, the facts are much more in accord with a Biblical Flood than with consensus geology. Why is this so? In this case of trace fossils from Spain (http://geology.geoscienceworld.org...), where trace fossils clearly show (as well as contradict the assumption begun by the OP) that trace fossils can exist in fast currents. They even had fossilized ripples.

Well actually, the trace fossils in La Rioja are not from currents, it was from flooding which created muddy plains, and the footprints were preserved after the plains dried up and new sediment putting pressure, creating these trace fossils, and the top sediments actually eroded off, allowing us to see them. So no, its not exactly the same as "Fast currents", because, given more time, these fossils would not have been preserved.

Of course, this was just a simple flooding, and now, just wind. However, a catastrophic flood would be quite different, especially one that creationists claim carved the grand canyon.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 2:49:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 7:52:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/18/2013 4:52:33 AM, Muted wrote:
As 1DA has mentioned me, I will respond. Firstly, there seems to be an assumption that the Flood would wipe out all traces of biological activity. By the very same reasoning that this assumption was reached, we can also assume that corrosion due to time would have wiped out trace activities.

Actually, the facts are much more in accord with a Biblical Flood than with consensus geology. Why is this so? In this case of trace fossils from Spain (http://geology.geoscienceworld.org...), where trace fossils clearly show (as well as contradict the assumption begun by the OP) that trace fossils can exist in fast currents. They even had fossilized ripples.

Well actually, the trace fossils in La Rioja are not from currents, it was from flooding which created muddy plains, and the footprints were preserved after the plains dried up and new sediment putting pressure, creating these trace fossils, and the top sediments actually eroded off, allowing us to see them. So no, its not exactly the same as "Fast currents", because, given more time, these fossils would not have been preserved.

Of course, this was just a simple flooding, and now, just wind. However, a catastrophic flood would be quite different, especially one that creationists claim carved the grand canyon.

I don't think you fully understand either the paper or my post.

1. These fossils did not, and I must emphasize the negative, come from "muddy plains." The paper itself deems the footprints to be conclusive proof that theropods could swim, due to the shape of the footprints. Now, if you could, please inform me of a way in which we can swim on the muddy plains. Thank you!
2. You make a distinction between "simple flooding" and "creationist flooding." I would like to ask you by what criteria do you make such a distinction. There are simple solutions to simple problems, but different phenomena generally produces different effects. You can't point to anything you want as proof against the very thing you want to deny. You have to provide predictions outside the realm of strawmen.
3. Your supposed "rebuttal" does not even contend with the paper, bringing in evidence not found anywhere in the paper. Please try sticking with the subject matter next time.

With that, I would like to affirm to the user behind the OP that trace fossils can very easily be accounted for under the Flood model.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 12:37:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 2:49:00 AM, Muted wrote:
At 1/18/2013 7:52:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/18/2013 4:52:33 AM, Muted wrote:
As 1DA has mentioned me, I will respond. Firstly, there seems to be an assumption that the Flood would wipe out all traces of biological activity. By the very same reasoning that this assumption was reached, we can also assume that corrosion due to time would have wiped out trace activities.

Actually, the facts are much more in accord with a Biblical Flood than with consensus geology. Why is this so? In this case of trace fossils from Spain (http://geology.geoscienceworld.org...), where trace fossils clearly show (as well as contradict the assumption begun by the OP) that trace fossils can exist in fast currents. They even had fossilized ripples.

Well actually, the trace fossils in La Rioja are not from currents, it was from flooding which created muddy plains, and the footprints were preserved after the plains dried up and new sediment putting pressure, creating these trace fossils, and the top sediments actually eroded off, allowing us to see them. So no, its not exactly the same as "Fast currents", because, given more time, these fossils would not have been preserved.

Of course, this was just a simple flooding, and now, just wind. However, a catastrophic flood would be quite different, especially one that creationists claim carved the grand canyon.

I don't think you fully understand either the paper or my post.

1. These fossils did not, and I must emphasize the negative, come from "muddy plains." The paper itself deems the footprints to be conclusive proof that theropods could swim, due to the shape of the footprints. Now, if you could, please inform me of a way in which we can swim on the muddy plains. Thank you!

I thought we were talking about the preservation of trace fossils after theyve been fossilized, from catastrophic flood conditions, and not whether they could form under water.

In any case, no. No one said that footprints cannot exist in still-water flood plains conditions that eventually dry up and produce trace fossils. Water that has stood relatively still can even preserve fingerprints. The problem here is that a). this, again, wasnt fast currents at all, as this was a flooded plains, and that b), any decently rapid water movement would have destroyed these trace fossils. We already know that specific circumstances are required to preserve trace fossils or ichnites, making it impossible for a global flood of the magnitude that creationists claim, to have produced, or preserved them.

2. You make a distinction between "simple flooding" and "creationist flooding." I would like to ask you by what criteria do you make such a distinction. There are simple solutions to simple problems, but different phenomena generally produces different effects. You can't point to anything you want as proof against the very thing you want to deny. You have to provide predictions outside the realm of strawmen.

Everything from the proposed mechanisms that caused the flood to the claims made by creationists as to the effects of the flood in regards to producing geological structures such as the grand canyon, mountains, etc, change it from simple flooding to creationist flooding.

3. Your supposed "rebuttal" does not even contend with the paper, bringing in evidence not found anywhere in the paper. Please try sticking with the subject matter next time.

Refer to point 1.

With that, I would like to affirm to the user behind the OP that trace fossils can very easily be accounted for under the Flood model.

Again, no. But nice try though.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 5:39:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 12:37:56 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/19/2013 2:49:00 AM, Muted wrote:
At 1/18/2013 7:52:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/18/2013 4:52:33 AM, Muted wrote:
As 1DA has mentioned me, I will respond. Firstly, there seems to be an assumption that the Flood would wipe out all traces of biological activity. By the very same reasoning that this assumption was reached, we can also assume that corrosion due to time would have wiped out trace activities.

Actually, the facts are much more in accord with a Biblical Flood than with consensus geology. Why is this so? In this case of trace fossils from Spain (http://geology.geoscienceworld.org...), where trace fossils clearly show (as well as contradict the assumption begun by the OP) that trace fossils can exist in fast currents. They even had fossilized ripples.

Well actually, the trace fossils in La Rioja are not from currents, it was from flooding which created muddy plains, and the footprints were preserved after the plains dried up and new sediment putting pressure, creating these trace fossils, and the top sediments actually eroded off, allowing us to see them. So no, its not exactly the same as "Fast currents", because, given more time, these fossils would not have been preserved.

Of course, this was just a simple flooding, and now, just wind. However, a catastrophic flood would be quite different, especially one that creationists claim carved the grand canyon.

I don't think you fully understand either the paper or my post.

1. These fossils did not, and I must emphasize the negative, come from "muddy plains." The paper itself deems the footprints to be conclusive proof that theropods could swim, due to the shape of the footprints. Now, if you could, please inform me of a way in which we can swim on the muddy plains. Thank you!

I thought we were talking about the preservation of trace fossils after theyve been fossilized, from catastrophic flood conditions, and not whether they could form under water.

Oh, so you"re saying that I have a BoP to show exactly how preservation of trace fossils could form in such conditions? See reply to next paragraph.

In any case, no. No one said that footprints cannot exist in still-water flood plains conditions that eventually dry up and produce trace fossils. Water that has stood relatively still can even preserve fingerprints. The problem here is that a). this, again, wasnt fast currents at all, as this was a flooded plains, and that b), any decently rapid water movement would have destroyed these trace fossils. We already know that specific circumstances are required to preserve trace fossils or ichnites, making it impossible for a global flood of the magnitude that creationists claim, to have produced, or preserved them.

How can I express a facepalm in text? To quote directly from the abstract (Since you obviously do not read the link, and since you probably would not understand it if I gave you the details), "swam with amplified asymmetrical walking movements to maintain direction into a leftward water current." Do you understand how fast the current was for the theropods to have to have clung to sediments to try to retain course? No, I don"t think you do.

2. You make a distinction between "simple flooding" and "creationist flooding." I would like to ask you by what criteria do you make such a distinction. There are simple solutions to simple problems, but different phenomena generally produces different effects. You can't point to anything you want as proof against the very thing you want to deny. You have to provide predictions outside the realm of strawmen.

Everything from the proposed mechanisms that caused the flood to the claims made by creationists as to the effects of the flood in regards to producing geological structures such as the grand canyon, mountains, etc, change it from simple flooding to creationist flooding.

I have already shown your rebuttal to be inadequate. See point 1 on how easily trace fossils are formed, and can be maintained (See article) under the flood model.

3. Your supposed "rebuttal" does not even contend with the paper, bringing in evidence not found anywhere in the paper. Please try sticking with the subject matter next time.

Refer to point 1.

Same to you. You did NOT read the paper, that I MUST conclude.

With that, I would like to affirm to the user behind the OP that trace fossils can very easily be accounted for under the Flood model.

Again, no. But nice try though.

Your refusal to read the paper actually harms your attempt to stop an explanation for trace fossils. I suggest moving on to another topic or challenging me to a debate on this.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 10:04:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 5:39:12 PM, Muted wrote:
At 1/19/2013 12:37:56 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/19/2013 2:49:00 AM, Muted wrote:
At 1/18/2013 7:52:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/18/2013 4:52:33 AM, Muted wrote:

How can I express a facepalm in text?

http://lmgtfy.com...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-"". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`\

Also done is:

*facepalm*
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Anti-atheist
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 10:24:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You can't actually prove a fossil was one of a living organism. Just because it looks like a living thing doesn't mean it is. Trace fossils can easily be formed in the flood. If land and animals are together a trace fossil will be formed by compressed flood waters on the animal. The grand canon was formed in the same way as evolutionists think (little by little) but much faster. Its no problemo
Anti-atheist

Registered genius
Certified butt-f*cker

imabench for fuhrer '13
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 12:39:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 10:04:25 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 1/19/2013 5:39:12 PM, Muted wrote:
At 1/19/2013 12:37:56 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/19/2013 2:49:00 AM, Muted wrote:
At 1/18/2013 7:52:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/18/2013 4:52:33 AM, Muted wrote:

How can I express a facepalm in text?

http://lmgtfy.com...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-"". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`\




Also done is:

*facepalm*

Thanks, will keep for future expressions
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 10:23:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/13/2013 9:33:34 PM, autodidact wrote:
I just recently learned about trace fossils in a few of the layers of the grand canyon, to me this would seem counter intuitive to the biblical flood account.
So I have 2 questions
What are some creditable site where i may actually see the information I noted above since were I saw this claim had no references.
For those creationist, how do you explain these trace fossils?

There is absolutely nothing observed in nature that conflicts with the creation account summarized in Genesis (and a handful of other scriptures acattered within the rest of the Bible).

There are of course YEC adherents - but their position is flawed and rests primarly upon English translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek source material.

There are subtleties lost in these translations that mask important details, when we scrutinize these accounts with care paid to the translation issues we see that it in fact describes an OEC account not a young one.

So I am a creationist and one with a considerable knowledge of science, but do not claim the creation was brought into existence 6,000 years ago.

Harry.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 4:15:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 10:23:09 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/13/2013 9:33:34 PM, autodidact wrote:
I just recently learned about trace fossils in a few of the layers of the grand canyon, to me this would seem counter intuitive to the biblical flood account.
So I have 2 questions
What are some creditable site where i may actually see the information I noted above since were I saw this claim had no references.
For those creationist, how do you explain these trace fossils?

There is absolutely nothing observed in nature that conflicts with the creation account summarized in Genesis (and a handful of other scriptures acattered within the rest of the Bible).

There are of course YEC adherents - but their position is flawed and rests primarly upon English translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek source material.

There are subtleties lost in these translations that mask important details, when we scrutinize these accounts with care paid to the translation issues we see that it in fact describes an OEC account not a young one.

So I am a creationist and one with a considerable knowledge of science, but do not claim the creation was brought into existence 6,000 years ago.

Harry.

Well, if you want to get nitty gritty, the order of creation for organic beings (i.e. plants, animals, humans) is all out of whack compared to a naturalistic account.

But, even assuming the Bible is inspired by God, I don't see why we should expect Genesis to be even remotely accurate if indeed Gen 1 were all a big metaphor. So while I'm not sure I agree with Genesis not conflicting with naturalism, I don't think that should be a huge problem for the religious.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 9:11:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 4:15:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/23/2013 10:23:09 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/13/2013 9:33:34 PM, autodidact wrote:
I just recently learned about trace fossils in a few of the layers of the grand canyon, to me this would seem counter intuitive to the biblical flood account.
So I have 2 questions
What are some creditable site where i may actually see the information I noted above since were I saw this claim had no references.
For those creationist, how do you explain these trace fossils?

There is absolutely nothing observed in nature that conflicts with the creation account summarized in Genesis (and a handful of other scriptures acattered within the rest of the Bible).

There are of course YEC adherents - but their position is flawed and rests primarly upon English translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek source material.

There are subtleties lost in these translations that mask important details, when we scrutinize these accounts with care paid to the translation issues we see that it in fact describes an OEC account not a young one.

So I am a creationist and one with a considerable knowledge of science, but do not claim the creation was brought into existence 6,000 years ago.

Harry.

Well, if you want to get nitty gritty, the order of creation for organic beings (i.e. plants, animals, humans) is all out of whack compared to a naturalistic account.

Out of "whack" with observation or with some "account" of the past?

But, even assuming the Bible is inspired by God, I don't see why we should expect Genesis to be even remotely accurate if indeed Gen 1 were all a big metaphor. So while I'm not sure I agree with Genesis not conflicting with naturalism, I don't think that should be a huge problem for the religious.

Well that's a fair point and the Bible is of course a summary, the creation of the universe, life etc takes up just a tiny part of the whole text. But it does claim to be the truth and it does encourage the reader to think and check what they read, it does not encourage a "just believe" attitude despite what many may think, including many Christians.

Genesis is a brief summary but as I said earlier does not claim what YEC advocates claim - and does not to my knowledge contradict what we observe in nature.

Harry.
autodidact
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 7:54:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As I understand it is the creationist's view that the layers that make up the grand canyon were laid down in the flood.
http://www.bobspixels.com...
the layers i listed are not at the top one is at the bottomof the layers sugested to be laid down by the flood so i could understand traced track type fossils there. could any creationist g into more detail on why the hermit shale and the coconino sand stone have trace fossils while the other layers do not. it would seem to me the water would have been too deep in the creationist modle... with the drowning of the whole world and all
see vid