Originally posted by pdaviesoz
Which bones. The masses of Flood deposited skeletons of predators and prey together which are commonly found near the tops of high places where they
were washed into crevices?
Okay, I see that you're not actually familiar with the material, then. No, you're talking about cave deposits. I'm talking about intercontinental
beds of rock (geologic columns) and the different animals deposited in different layers. So, here in Texas, we have small dinosauria in the Woodbine
formation and Tenontosaurus in the PawPaw formation... etc, etc. And lots and lots of oysters and clams from the Cretaceous oceans covering the older
dinosaur skeletons (followed by fossil horse teeth, mammoth bones, etc from the Quaterary.)
They're not stacked by predator/prey, by size, etc, and some are buried as far as 2,000 feet below others.
The human remains found regularly that average about 15 ft tall (Shhh - you can't tell)?
You mean THIS bone?
Right. What the article doesn't mention is that it's also a bad sculpting job done by an artist who didn't know their anatomy (condyles are too
flattened (I taught anat & phys at the university last fall, so I know something about what they should look like.))
Here's the artist's letter stating that it's a sculpture done by doubling the size of another femur:
The human relics found embedded in coal that supposedly takes 250 million years to form?
Which ones? Links?
Or the Science? The total lack of "favourable mutations", "transitional forms" etc. The total impossibility of DNA structure and
replication mechanisms forming by chance.
Sort of a straw man argument, there. Very few creatures turn into fossils, but I think the response to this one is that it doesn't matter how many
fossils we find, some folks won't believe that one species can turn into different subspecies or different species or families or orders given a
billion years or more and geographic isolation. I think they'd doubt it even if we found every single body of every single offspring of that distant
However, we do have a test: If evolution isn't true, then if you have a very ancient organism (say, something from 500,000,000 years ago) and a more
recent version (say, something from 100,000,000 years ago) that when we find fossils in that group from an intermediate time period (200,000,000
years) that they will have traits of both groups, and very predictable sets of traits.
We've found that confirming evidence many times.
The presence of polystrate fossils that cross several strata supposedly formed over millions of years? The mounting evidence that all of the
geological processes believed to take millions of years can happen within a decade or even weeks in catastrophic circumstances?
I'd like to see the mechanism by which you get a series of limestone beds that are 20-80 feet thick (South Texas, near Del Rio) layered by mudstone
and later (Big Bend area) covered by volcanic ash 1,000 feet thick in a few weeks or a decade.
With different types of fossils in the limestone. And there's a good transition... the lower forms are the same species but different than the
Besides, Creationists actually admit that evolution exists (they say microevolution ...and of course, evolution is simply a series of microevolutions
that take place over a very long timescale.)
The basic truth is that the Turks have more archaeological sites than anywhere else on earth. It is, after all, the cradle of civilisation
('cause that's where the Ark landed???). They KNOW their stuff and they have signed off on this site.
In fact, Turkish geologists say it's not an archaeological site, but a natural formation. So do many others. The site's there because of political
and economic maneuvering: