Fossils and the Flood II

Atheist · Post 1: Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:19 pm Post subject: Fossils and the Flood II

OK. The first thread has wandered off in every direction except the one I was asking about.

This isn't a question about strata, or whether the flood actually happened, etc.

The question is: Why have the creation "scientists" not demonstrated the rapid fossilization mechanisms that must exist if the flood story is true?

Real science says that minerlization processes happen generally over a long period of time. By creation theory (if there was one) all the mechanism of fossil formation must take place over short periods of time.

The flood lasted only a year, and thereafter the land masses were no longer submerged. In high areas the sediment layer would have been very thin. Whatever process there was, it would have had to take effect over the year of the flood.

So why has it not been demonstrated?

The demonstration would be a) easy, and b) convincing.

Place a dead animal in a tank with some sediment. Let it settle out and apply whatever pressure, temperature, or whatever else the nonexistant creation "model" demands. Open the tank in 12-18 months and show that your recover a perfect fossile. Easy.

It's so easy that we can assume that the reason it has not been done is that it doesn't work. I.e. Creationism is already known to be false.

DanZ

Post 2: Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:57 am Post subject:

That's a very good point. YEC stated, in the first thread, that:

Post 3: Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:17 am Post subject:

juliod posted

Atheist · Post 4: Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:50 am Post subject:

Christian · Post 5: Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:57 pm Post subject:

Where is the scientific experiment that recreates fossilization over a long time? I guess from your logic there would be nothing to see here either then?

Agnostic · Post 6: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:27 pm Post subject:

2005 Best Debater · Post 7: Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:37 pm Post subject:

I live very near here, a place on the South coast of England (known as the Jurassic coast)

I suppose living in Britain gives us a slightly different perspective on timescales - we frequently unearth roman coins while digging our gardens (I have collected several from mine), 2000 years of history occupying a mere few feet of soil. While a pleasant walk to the beach provides a somewhat deeper view of history. My son and I frequently gather fossils from the base of these rocks - visits immediately after winter storms being most productive. My son is an avid Dinosaur enthusiast - what 10 year old isn't? He's a smart little chap, and follows up his field-work with many an hour spent in our local museums and exhibits. His knowledge of the diversity and span of the creatures from the Cambrian to the Jurassic brings a tear to my eye - especially so when faced with certain occasions.

Out of all the clearly defined sedimentary layers which one is supposed to be due to this "Flood"? Of course these cliffs are supposed to date from the middle Jurassic, while others to the West are early. So the Flood would be where in relation to this?

Atheist · Post 8: Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:09 pm Post subject:

Christian · Post 9: Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:38 pm Post subject:

Post 10: Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:49 pm Post subject:

Diamonds are believed to have formed quickly, but a long time ago. Not, over a long period of time. Rather, they are thought to have been formed by a quick release of hot gas. This creates the temperature and pressure window that is necessary.

I personally am not convinced they are old because there really isn't a way to date them. It's really an open area of science..no one can figure out why or really how they form. My theory is that it is from the flood and the weight of the water and shifting of plates, but this is just an idea in my head.

Someone asked why there isn't any science? Well, with the exception of Baylor University, the only place you can get a PhD in Geology and do research is a secular university. You're not likely to find a professor or school that is going to support YEC research. I wish it were not true. But it is true that scientific academia is by and large not willing to consider that their presuppositions might be wrong, even though they use terms like "it's not well understood" or "as yet undiscovered". It's very sad to me, because that is not how science should be. So your choice is to sell out for 20 years until you have a sound scientific reputation and then do YEC research and probably get laughed at and probably never published anyhow. Seems kind of pointless.