Paleontologist Explains What The Fossils Really Say

[Viktor]

Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong

 

[tyroneweaver]

Over last weekend the University of Utah said that fires that burned the grasslands killed the Mastodons

 

[Muhammed]

That would really suck if you were a mastodon. But it would be kinda great if you were having a BBQ.

 

[Hollie]

Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong

He's a Disco'tute groupie.

 

[alang1216]

Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong

Whatever the case, the fossil record certainly doesn't support creationism.

 

[james bond]

Whatever the case, the fossil record certainly doesn't support creationism.

The evidence supports creation even more. How did the fossil remains get there in the first place? It's in the type of fossils and the locations where they are found. Atheist scientists just place them in the orderly fake time levels that they've established.

The truth is the layer evels are named after location and not time. It shows where the animals died. Obviously, you've been suckered by geology of uniformitarianism.

This is why I have a healthy respect for Satan. He tempts, God warns, but it has led to what people "believe as science" today. It was prophecised in the Bible and this has become true.

I think the creationists even have a year when all of it could end -- 2060. That's not in the Bible, but one of their earlier great scientists swagged/predicted (?) it.

 

[alang1216]

The evidence supports creation even more. How did the fossil remains get there in the first place? It's in the type of fossils and the locations where they are found. Atheist scientists just place them in the orderly fake time levels that they've established.

Not fake but relative time levels. If one rock layer is found lying on top of another it is dated as younger than the layer below. That is how geological dating began, absolute dating by isotopes came much later. The oldest marine rocks never contain whales or any other mammals for example. Since later rocks do contain mammals where did they come from?

The truth is the layer evels are named after location and not time. It shows where the animals died. Obviously, you've been suckered by geology of uniformitarianism.

The layers are named for the location where they were first described by a geologist.

 

[james bond]

Not fake but relative time levels. If one rock layer is found lying on top of another it is dated as younger than the layer below. That is how geological dating began, absolute dating by isotopes came much later. The oldest marine rocks never contain whales or any other mammals for example. Since later rocks do contain mammals where did they come from?


The layers are named for the location where they were first described by a geologist.

The atheist geologists changed it to time and in perfectly organized by time layers because it had to explain billions of years in the past. This is the fake part called uniformitarianism. It's like how atheists and their scientists believed in an eternal universe in the past.

The names of the Earth's layers represent location (look up the names lol) and not time as fake represented in millions of years. The names came first and had nothing to do with time. Doesn't that make more sense?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong

About what? Could you summarize this in your words?

 

[alang1216]

The atheist geologists changed it to time and in perfectly organized by time layers because it had to explain billions of years in the past. This is the fake part called uniformitarianism. It's like how atheists and their scientists believed in an eternal universe in the past.

As I wrote, the millions of years came later. What came first, and I'm not sure you understand, is that the Pleistocene is older than the Holocene and the Pliocene is older than the Pleistocene. Do you agree with that at least?

The names of the Earth's layers represent location (look up the names lol) and not time as fake represented in millions of years. The names came first and had nothing to do with time. Doesn't that make more sense?

You may need to look up the terms 'relative' and 'absolute'.

 

[james bond]

As I wrote, the millions of years came later. What came first, and I'm not sure you understand, is that the Pleistocene is older than the Holocene and the Pliocene is older than the Pleistocene. Do you agree with that at least?

>>I'm not sure you understand, is that the Pleistocene is older than the Holocene and the Pliocene is older than the Pleistocene<<

What does it mean if the layers you clairm are older than the other? It sounds like it's in nice order and that time had to do with one layer growing on top of another, but it didn't take millions of years. If millions of years came later, what do you think happened?

Also, what if there was some catastrophe that changed the layers? Would an earthquake change the layers?

 

[alang1216]

>>I'm not sure you understand, is that the Pleistocene is older than the Holocene and the Pliocene is older than the Pleistocene<<

What does it mean if the layers you clairm are older than the other? It sounds like it's in nice order and that time had to do with one layer growing on top of another, but it didn't take millions of years. If millions of years came later, what do you think happened?

If you're asking why did the early geologists determine the layers represent millions of years, here's how. They measure how long it takes for new proto-limestone to form from the shell of plankton. Then they measure the thickness of existing limestone layers (e.g., White Cliffs of Dover) and get a ballpark number.

Also, what if there was some catastrophe that changed the layers? Would an earthquake change the layers?

An earthquake or 'catastrophe'? Never. Only continental drift could do it but the evidence for it would be obvious.

 

[james bond]

If you're asking why did the early geologists determine the layers represent millions of years, here's how. They measure how long it takes for new proto-limestone to form from the shell of plankton. Then they measure the thickness of existing limestone layers (e.g., White Cliffs of Dover) and get a ballpark number.

No one can see millions of years. I asked about catastrophes changing the Earth ahead of you making your point because a catastrophe such as a flood would hasten limestone to form. Almost all of the limestone that we observe were laid down by large amounts of water. Lime rich volcanic waters gushed up from the ocean floor. We can see it as we have 3/4 of our planet covered by water. I have observable evidence in the mid-Atlantic Ridge and plate tectonics showing the Himalayas and Mt. Everest were formed by plate tectonics in our ocean floor. The limestone is on top of the Himalayas and Mt. Everest. How do you explain that with your uniformitarianism?

The Earth was different in the near past and was formed by catastrophism such as the Grand Canyon (further evidence).

 

[Rigby5]

Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong

Nonsense.
When a species is not doing well, there will be inbreeding and low fossil record, and that makes it appear to be against gradualism.
But the reality is that gradualism is what is really happening in the background, and what looks like big evolutionary jumps are just when the majority of a species dies out, leaving a more unusual remainder.

 

[Rigby5]

Over last weekend the University of Utah said that fires that burned the grasslands killed the Mastodons

Wrong.
There have always been grassland fires from lighting, and it never cause any specie extinction.
There are always things like hills, lakes, rivers, etc., that provide sanctuary for species in all fires.
Not only that, but grass fires do not move nearly as fast as forest fires, since tall trees accelerate fires, because they can move upward as they move forward.

 

[Rigby5]

The evidence supports creation even more. How did the fossil remains get there in the first place? It's in the type of fossils and the locations where they are found. Atheist scientists just place them in the orderly fake time levels that they've established.

The truth is the layer evels are named after location and not time. It shows where the animals died. Obviously, you've been suckered by geology of uniformitarianism.

This is why I have a healthy respect for Satan. He tempts, God warns, but it has led to what people "believe as science" today. It was prophecised in the Bible and this has become true.

I think the creationists even have a year when all of it could end -- 2060. That's not in the Bible, but one of their earlier great scientists swagged/predicted (?) it.

That makes no sense.
Obviously, depth indicates time, as well as the mineralization process the fossils exhibit.
And there are an infinite number of slow variants that make creationism impossible.
If an all knowing and all powerful being made species, then they would have been made perfect from day one.
No change would be needed or allowed.

 

[Rigby5]

The atheist geologists changed it to time and in perfectly organized by time layers because it had to explain billions of years in the past. This is the fake part called uniformitarianism. It's like how atheists and their scientists believed in an eternal universe in the past.

The names of the Earth's layers represent location (look up the names lol) and not time as fake represented in millions of years. The names came first and had nothing to do with time. Doesn't that make more sense?

No, that makes no sense.
The names originally had no time correlation, but after the contents of the layer was identified, then its time relationship did become known.
So now by examining layer content, we can correlate its time.

The differentiation between different layers can only be explained by time.

 

[Rigby5]

As I wrote, the millions of years came later. What came first, and I'm not sure you understand, is that the Pleistocene is older than the Holocene and the Pliocene is older than the Pleistocene. Do you agree with that at least?


You may need to look up the terms 'relative' and 'absolute'.

No.
While I have not personally done the research, as I understand what they have done is very convincing that the Pliocene comes before the Holocene.

Pliocene–Holocene evolution of depositional conditions in the eastern Mediterranean: Role of anoxia vs. productivity at time of sapropel deposition

A multiproxy geochemical study of nine sapropel layers from ODP Hole 964A, ODP Leg 160 in the eastern Mediterranean spanning the Pliocene–Holocene tim…

www.sciencedirect.com

There are a number of different dating techniques that all agree.
There are changes in species, degree of mineral process like crystalization and fossilization, radiation decay dating, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

>>I'm not sure you understand, is that the Pleistocene is older than the Holocene and the Pliocene is older than the Pleistocene<<

What does it mean if the layers you clairm are older than the other? It sounds like it's in nice order and that time had to do with one layer growing on top of another, but it didn't take millions of years. If millions of years came later, what do you think happened?

Also, what if there was some catastrophe that changed the layers? Would an earthquake change the layers?

Earthquakes do not change layers.
They just shake them back and forth a bit.

There are things like subduction that can cause layers to tilt, but there could never be any significant reversing of layers.

 

[Rigby5]

No one can see millions of years. I asked about catastrophes changing the Earth ahead of you making your point because a catastrophe such as a flood would hasten limestone to form. Almost all of the limestone that we observe were laid down by large amounts of water. Lime rich volcanic waters gushed up from the ocean floor. We can see it as we have 3/4 of our planet covered by water. I have observable evidence in the mid-Atlantic Ridge and plate tectonics showing the Himalayas and Mt. Everest were formed by plate tectonics in our ocean floor. The limestone is on top of the Himalayas and Mt. Everest. How do you explain that with your uniformitarianism?

The Earth was different in the near past and was formed by catastrophism such as the Grand Canyon (further evidence).

Things like the Grand Canyon are insignificantly small.
The height of Mt. Everest is insignificantly small.
There is nothing contradicting the great ages of the planet, being about 4,5 billion years old.
Limestone is from water and lime, but a catastrophic flood would NOT hasten its formation in the least.
It does not take large amounts of water to lay down limestone, but the reduction of water that does it.
If you have large amounts of water, the lime will remain in dissolved.
And don't try to bring up the great flood, because there is no evidence of one.
There is evidence of the Mediterranean, Black Sea, and other areas being dry at one time, but that is from a reduction of sea level, due to glaciation.
It is not due to any change in the amount of water.
That was determined by the comets and asteroids that coalesced to form the planet, and not any later addition or subtraction.
And there could have been no great flood near the time frame of human existence, because any subterranean ice would have melted billions of years ago when the planet core became hot and molten due to radiation, gravity, and rotational energy.