Fossils and the Flood II

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:19 pm

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

Aximili23 · Post by **Aximili23** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:57 am

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

Did you know that bones can fossilize in as fast as 15 years? It depend on the perculation, minerals etc.

Something the flood would have produced a lot of

Does this mean even he admits that mineralization cannot take place in only about a year?

I'm no geologist, but it seems to me that rapid fossilization isn't the only process that creationists must prove. What about diamonds? Aren't these formed by applying intense heat and pressure to organic matter over millions of years? If the earth really is young, then creationists must demonstrate how diamonds can be formed quickly via processes such as the flood.

YEC · Post by **YEC** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:17 am

juliod posted

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.

Show me one peice of YEC material..web site, book, literature what ever where they make the claim you just made for them in a strawman like fashion.

You do know that fossilization depens on several things...the amount of water perculation, the amount of minerals in the water and so on..who says it need to take millions of years to produce a fossil ? You????

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:50 am

Show me one peice of YEC material..web site, book, literature what ever where they make the claim you just made for them in a strawman like fashion.

You misunderstand the point. Your flood chronology requires a series (i.e. more than a few) of fossilization mechanisms that work on the time scale of 12 months.

Dead animals laid down by the flood would have remained under water for about 12 months, and then the waters receeded. The process will have stopped at that point. Many fossils are at or near the surface (i.e. they are not subject to any special forces of pressure or temperature).

If the flood produced the fossils, show how it was done. It's that simple. And it would be easy, if it were true.

Again, you creationists have nothing. Nothing at all. An empty box. Move along... nothing to see here...

DanZ

youngborean · Post by **youngborean** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:57 pm

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?

perfessor · Post by **perfessor** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:27 pm

youngborean wrote: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?

I don't follow the logic here. We have fossils. We might start by asking, "old or young?" One problem is, we don't have any "young" fossils - i.e. that can be dated by short-term yardsticks such as C14 dating, recent strata, etc. OTOH, we can date the strata the fossils are in by other means - radiometrics that indicate "ancient" layers.

If we had a method that we understood, that creates fossils quickly, we could see if that method had applied for the fossils we have. But - we don't.

Therefore, in the absense of an explanation for a quick fossilization process, and lacking any "young" fossils, we can justifiably conclude that fossils are "old". The burden of proof has already been satisfied by conventional "old fossil" explanations. Anyone with a contrary explanation is welcome to bring it forth - but the burden of proof would be on them.

QED · Post by **QED** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:37 pm

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?

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:09 pm

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?

Those are probably the least enlightened question I have seen on these forums.

If the scientific explanations are true, then it is predicted that you cannot recreate most fossilization mechanisms in the lab. This is what we observe.

OTOH, if creationism is true, then it would be fairly to very easy to recreate these mechanisms. A little water, a little sediment, a dead rat, and a period of 12-18 months. (I'll let you go as long as 18 months because I'm a generous sort of guy.) Perhaps a little preassure and/or heat. All these things are easily countenanced within the scope of any reasonable scientific proposal.

Why have the creation "scientists" not done this experiment? We know why: They can't. It doesn't work. Creationism is falsified again.

DanZ

youngborean · Post by **youngborean** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:38 pm

Those are probably the least enlightened question I have seen on these forums.

If the scientific explanations are true, then it is predicted that you cannot recreate most fossilization mechanisms in the lab. This is what we observe.

OTOH, if creationism is true, then it would be fairly to very easy to recreate these mechanisms. A little water, a little sediment, a dead rat, and a period of 12-18 months. (I'll let you go as long as 18 months because I'm a generous sort of guy.) Perhaps a little preassure and/or heat. All these things are easily countenanced within the scope of any reasonable scientific proposal.

Why have the creation "scientists" not done this experiment? We know why: They can't. It doesn't work. Creationism is falsified again.

How does falsifying a proposed mechanism automatically make the other true? If this is the least enlightened statement then I am really missing something? Your logic doesn't work. You must assume your model of creation is correct (which would require more explanation) to even begin to make the statement you are making. You are saying "fossilization takes a long time, prove me wrong" sound kind of mythic to me. Looks like you have a creation model of your own.

gabbro · Post by **gabbro** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:49 pm

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.