shewey (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
You're right that pressure has very little to do with it. I meant the amount of sediment that surrounded these bones would help to fossilize them quicker.
shewey (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
There's very little room to respond, so answered what I could. For the flood layers, it wouldn't make sense to think that a flood would lay down sediments the same regardless of geography. Different places would channel mudslides and moving water differently. One must also consider the type of land that was there before the flood.Natural occurances don't work perfectly - you know that. So why do you all of a sudden require it for a global flood?
karl198 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Look if you're telling me plate movement now is down to underground chambers of water then you really do need to do some research. I'm sick of having to point out all these fallacies there's probably more but i can only reply to so much. Do some research on evolution and plate movement and how planets are formed and how we can observe this and some biology and geology in general. Once you've learnt a thing or two then tell me i'm wrong but it's clear right now you have no clue. End of.
shewey (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
That's sort of my point about the animals. The higher ones would move around quite a bit before becoming buried. This would lead to some variation in the fossils.There are huge underground chambers of water. Plenty to cover earth. The resulting pressure release would move earth's plates. Slow movement is what we'd expect to see today.
Hochemon2008 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Fossilization rates has very little to do with pressure in fact pressure often destroys bones before they have the chance to become fossils but if you have something that contradicts this please give me a source. As for your more lush earth as karl198 pointed out it fits perfect with evolutionary theory, we also have reasons as to why the earth was warmer, not the least of which is higher CO2 content.
Hochemon2008 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Did you actually read my post or just the parts you thought helped you? That was one of many evidences I used. Another one for you if there was a massive flood we would expect and even layer of sediment layed across the whole entire planet...we don't have that. I am still waiting for an "alternative explanation"
Hochemon2008 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Animals run to higher ground? ok even if that was so what happens when you take a bottle full of objects of different densities and fill it with water and then shake it up, which is what would happen in a flood, you would have mixing of fossils of similar density with the more dense ones at the bottom and less dense at the top, the opposite of what you are saying would happen. There are local areas of rock that are indicative of local floods but how are you saying that the layers point toward it
karl198 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
There are more than 1 type of fossil. Research this stuff before you make your wild accusations and like i said before radiocarbon dating is accurate for well beyond 6000 years. If you choose to ignore this it isn't my problem i'm telling you a fact and facts are something religion seems to hate as soon as it disproves their nice little myths. The earth was lush millions of years ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth, this is consistant with evolution and radiocarbon dating of fossils and matter.
karl198 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
The idea animals would be run to higher ground and get drowned and not even move slightly from their place of death is stupid. Bones don't fall out of an animals body as soon as it dies! They'd float for a while.Water 'spewing' through plates wouldn't work anyway? Where's the water meant to have come from and why would it have to come through the plates? If you say 'it came from God and therefore its magic' you've lost the argument cus thats 100% illogical.
shewey (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Fossilisation can happen quickly with enough pressure - a quick, massive mudslide would do it. I saw the coal thing on a creationist video. I'll try to look it up and give you a better citation. However, it does give good evidence that the earth doesn't have to be as old as some say it is. It shows that man was around *before* the formation of coal. It also shows a much more lush earth, as such a large deposit of coal is only possible with tons of vegetation. This is consistent with Genesis.
