From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Dan Carlton Sent: January-31-13 5:09 PM To:Message 1 of 68 , Feb 1View Source
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Joe Martin <key.pawn.trucking@...> wrote:
Only if you assume evolution is true. The fact is all those fossils lived and died at the same time and were sorted into different strata by the sorting action of the Flood waters.
JM> Sorted??? Sorted how, Dan?? By colour? Size? Shape? Species? Ethnic Origin? What was the sorting mechanism and how did it work?? It's YOUR science... trot out the evidence for sorting and how it worked to produce the strata we observe in Geology and paleontology...
An important phenomenon, which will be called lensing, was observed in the sediment tank. Some layers were more porous and permeable than others. If water flowed more easily up through one sedimentary layer than the layer directly above, a lens of water accumulated between them. Multiple lenses could form simultaneously, one a short distance above the other. Water in these nearly horizontal lenses always flowed uphill.16
Throughout the flood, a myriad of water lenses grew and then decreased with each wave cycle. [See Figure 97.] During liquefaction, organisms floated up into the lens directly above. Water’s buoyant force is only about half that of liquefied sediments, so a water lens was less able to lift dead organisms into the denser sedimentary layer directly above the lens. In each geographical region, organisms with similar size, shape, and density (usually members of the same species) often ended up in the same lens. There they were swept by currents for many miles along those nearly horizontal channels.17
JM> Ok... so why don't we see any T-Rex fossils along with Mammoth? They were both about the same size?? Why don't we find Acanthostega fossils next to Wolf or deer fossils? Sorting by size and shape doesn't Work Danny...
... Good luck getting an honest appraisal from Dan. When one ignores even the writings they themselves tout as accurate and infallible, simply because theyMessage 68 of 68 , Feb 3View Source--- In email@example.com, "SH" wrote:
>Good luck getting an honest appraisal from Dan. When one ignores even the writings they themselves tout as accurate and infallible, simply because they want to impose their own traditions on it, and make it say anything they want it to say, then pointing them to reality and expecting them to accept it is a waste of time.
> > > Second, your comment is false.
> > > The fossil record order was initially
> > > discovered 200+ years ago
> > > both before Darwinian evolution and
> > > by early Christian Geologists.
> > isaac: Christians who were honest enough to
> > report what they discovered and come to conclusions
> > that went where the evidence led.
> > Not charlatans and hucksters like Morris, who
> > concocted lies and invented anti-scientific
> > make believe stories in order to sell books to
> > the rubes and undermine legitimate science.
> > > Geologists who started with
> > > the assumption that the bible
> > > was an accurate straightforward
> > > history of life.
> > isaac: And who were honest and ethical enough to accept that their cherished myth was contradictory to the actual evidence, and didn't have to prop it up with calculated lies and nonsense.
> > Of course, not all did. By the time the theory of biological evolution rolled around, there were those willing to lie about it from the beginning. Dan follows in their footsteps rather than the ones who reported what they actually discovered and helped form the foundation of modern scientific understanding in those areas.
> > I wonder if Dan knows that there have been those hollering the theory of evolution would die for more than 150 years? I guess Dan wants history to laugh at him as much as it laughs at them.
> Tin: I don't think Dan's thoughmasters allow
> him to believe in anything unless it is
> approved by them.
> Quick Dan go check with your thought masters
> and see if you ever allowed to believe in
> the early Christian Geologists !
As Randy used to say, when a book says anything then it says nothing.
You know, I never really accepted it until now, only inasmuch as I can reword it to make more sense in context, because just about any writing can say anything to anyone.
My rewording: when one imposes their interpretation to any writing, the writing says nothing. Why? Because then the original intent and meaning of the writing is lost.
I often refer to the movie "Back to School" with Rodney Dangerfield. In it he plays a rich man who never went to college, deciding to go to college to help his son. He decides to hire staff to do his homework and research. He hired Kurt Vonnegut to write about his own work. The teacher failed Rodney and told him "whoever you got to write this paper doesn't know the first thing about Kurt Vonnegut."
That to me was one of the most hilarious moments ever, because it proves my point completely. It is true. I have written stories and poems, and some have been subject to some of the strangest interpretations I had ever heard. And yet I could tell them "nope, that's not what I meant". That's why I could never completely agree with Randy's statement. It's simply not true.
At any rate, an old earth is indeed supported by scripture when all is taken in context and not by some imposed emotional human interpretation.