What's "making stuff up" is the ridiculous idea that it would take thousands of years to make a fossil. You don't know that, and there is evidence that it can happen in very short periods, for instance in caves. I'd have to dig it up but it involves the replacement of organic matter with mineral matter in a matter of years, not even hundreds let alone thousands.
43 comments
"take thousands of years to make a fossil."
Well actually it does. The word Fossil LITERALLY means that it is from the remote past.
What you are thinking of is petrification, which is not the same thing. Not all fossils are petrified remains and not all petrified animals and plants are fossils.
I don't doubt that under specific conditions fossils can form quicker than under other conditions. The location of the fossil, the conditions of the surrounding soils and many other factors give clues to how quickly a fossil formed. Just because one formed quicker than another does not mean that all of them formed just as quickly
Let me guess... it was some "creation scientist" who discovered claimed that fossils can be formed in just a few short years? You do realize that real scientists also use the geological strata to date fossils as well as other dating methods, don't you?
Seeing as how you're a YEC, you probably don't.
@ Z
And some dog poop stands in for grey matter as these zealots have shown.
A zombie film involving these guys would have a hoard of Divine clones replace the undead!
(Think 'last scene in Pink Flamingos ' and let's leave it at that... *bleh*)
You're all fools 'above' on this one. A cursory read will show you fossils can only form quickly.
Watch an Autumn leaf - what are its chances of fossilizing.
Shoot a bison and leave it - what are its chances of fossilizing.
Still clueless.
Bet your life on your Science Mr Spak. Hold it, hold it, hold it.
Ok, fine. For argument, I'll accept that fossils form in 15 minutes.
That's still 15 minutes that occurred thousands, millions, or billions of years ago.
Oh your god!
You mean that things that aren't fossils demonstrate that things that aren't fossils are not fossilized! THIS REVOLUTIONIZES NOTHING!
"Your dog could still suck that marrow and get a meal out of it."
"Unfreeze a few Mommoth bones and feed them to your huskies."
"hundreds of sedimentary layers forming in hours"
Quickly formed layers of volcanic debris are very different from slowly deposited limestones. If you can demonstrate a thick layer of limestone being deposited in a matter of months from a volcanic eruption, you might just win a Nobel Prize for geology.
Please don't feed the troll, he's getting diabetes from all the attention, just leave him alone and he'll go away when he gets bored.
He's proven time and time again that he's not interested in serious debate, and attempting to do so is a waste of time. As funny as his nutbaggery is, its getting old.
Religitards such as troll boy utterly misunderstanding and then misrepresenting research in order to attempt to prove the what didn't happen in the first place is quite encouraging.
He isn't perceptive enough to realise why atheism is on the rise in the US. If he looked in the mirror, he'd find out. So I'm happy for his ilk to keep spouting idiocy. It's working in our favour.
What's the point? No one (except maybe the occasional amateur on the Internet) offers the fact that something is a fossil as evidence of its age. A fossil of sorts may form in a year, but uranium doesn't decay to lead or potassium to argon in a year.
@gafwen: no, no, that was the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who did it to keep scientists entertained. Get your myths straight! ;D
thanks tracer, sharp eyes - I don't usually proof - you see, I have as solid a proof as there is.... pun
..the finding of mammoth bones, etc., in the ... was sent by the Czar to examine the carcass and found it in a still fresh condition.
I am conflating [deliberately], the Creation has "wet paint" - metaphor.
To paraphrase someone else on that forum, show us a fossil that is less than thousands of years old!
Do you even know what a fossil is?
Seems Phillip George is mixing up the process of fossilisation and the conditions for fossilisation.
The ichthyosaur you're talking about would have been killed and burried in a short time, but the process in which inorganic minerals replace the organic chemicals of the bones, etc, would still take a very long time.
Mineralization can be quite quick.
and, yes, everything had to die quickly. So very much soft tissue left imprints.
The Flood, the single biggest kill off in History,is Real. If you want to play moral equivalence to charge God with genocide, forget the Amorites. Look at the fossil record.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
