Yet another example of astonishing fossil preservation

[Kev]

Actually Richard Dawkins is poised to release his latest book entitled' Why evolution is True' where he presumably will cram all of the biggest evidences to prove evolution beyond doubt.

I've preordered my copy, I love reading his stuff even though I disagree with all of it. His last book, The Dawkins Delusion was embarrasingly poor imo using the kind of tactics you'd expect from a snake oil salesman.

But as the most highly devoted atheist in the world, his books are surely the place to go to get the proof for evolution so I recommend everyone who is interested in buying his books, to see for yourself all this 'evidence' then go out and do some real learning and you'll see how quickly all of the evidence can be refuted and dismissed.

It's Dawkins books on evolution (and in times past Stephen Jay Goulds) that first convinced me of creationsim.

[Youngblood]

lol really Bilbo c'mon.

The whole is your arguements always boil down to the same theme. Interpretation. 2nd law of Thermodynamics. You interpret this way. The rest of the science world interprets it another. Understanding the fossil record. Same thing. And now Dawkins to?

It is one of the reasons I rarely ever jump into the debates here on the subject. There is simply no point.

I'd rather go debate with the neighbors kid who is 5 and get into a "I know you are but what am I" because atleast then we can go get ice cream later.

[Kev]

lol really Bilbo c'mon.

The whole is your arguements always boil down to the same theme. Interpretation. 2nd law of Thermodynamics. You interpret this way. The rest of the science world interprets it another. Understanding the fossil record. Same thing. And now Dawkins to?

It is one of the reasons I rarely ever jump into the debates here on the subject. There is simply no point.

I'd rather go debate with the neighbors kid who is 5 and get into a "I know you are but what am I" because atleast then we can go get ice cream later.

No problem Youngblood my man, when I was your age I laughed at those who challenged evolution too.

It was only in my late teens and early twenties when I actually wanted to study paleontology that I really started to study evolution and to my shock and dismay found out it was a complete bust.

Continue to scoff now but hopefully sometime in the future you will find the time and inclination to look into this fascinating subject more closely, you may be suprised at what you find.

[CGM]

...
So no examples then? Just like evolutionists cannot produce any missing link fossils or transitional forms, beyond a bird having some teeth.

So in effect what you are saying is that you know that evolution is true and that it doesn't need any examples because the truth is self evident.

It's an interesting use of logic and science I must say.

You completely misrepresented my post. Maybe you didn't read it. Surprise surprise. That's why debating with you is a waste of time. I said very clearly that I was not attempting to prove evolution, nor was I attempting to disprove intelligent design. I repeat, my only goal was to point the falseness of one of your arguments. I repeat, you misstated, misinterpreted, and misapplied the order/ disorder thing. Not that I expect you to acknowlege that.

As for me misinterperating the Geological Survey regarding the fossilised ink, I think I am interperating it correctly.

You see they KNOW that the squid is 180,000,000 years old, they KNOW that because their evolutionary theories say it is so, based on the rock strata it is found in.

So faced with a preserved ink sac, which the discoverer himself admitted was a greater than 1 in a billion chance, instead of challening the age theory they instead invent a whole new process of fossilisation called the 'Medusa Effect' whereby this fossil must have turned to stone in just a couple of days!

So they now believe that fossils can turn to stone in just days, that's wonderful, but does this not mean that the rest of their uniform approach to geology is under threat? I mean if this can fossilise in just days thanks to a hitherto unknown fossilisation process could not some of the geologic structures that they believe took hundreds of millions of years to form similarly not have been created in a much quicker fashion, requiring just days or weeks rather than entire epochs?

The Grand Canyon for example? Is it really several hundred million years of slow and gradual erosion caused by the Colarado River, or could it have another cause, more catastrophic in nature?

I think for you this becomes just a matter of debate and you are not really thinking with your own mind.

It's a fascinating subject and you should test the evidence.

The whole theory of evolution totters on shaky foundations and a little digging of your own can topple the entire structure.

You've changed your story a lot from the first two posts. Surprise surprise. I won't attempt to debate what you have said above. I'll just quote the first two posts, and bold the obvious misrepresentations...

Rather incredibly the BBC news website reports today how palaeontologists have actually drawn using ink from a 150 million year old squid.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Wiltshire | Ink found in Jurassic-era squid


So not only is this squid unevolved in over 150 million years of evolution it's ink sac full of ink has remained nice and wet for of all that time, no small achievement considering the nozzles on my last printer clogged and went dry after just a few months

Am I the only person here who is sceptical that ink can remain in a liquid form for over 150 million years? That's one hell of a fucking shelf life I'd like to see Epson manage that

Ha the Daily Mail version says 155 Million years!

Apparently the odds of finding something like an ink sac unfossilised according to the evolutionary scientists is a billion to one, a nice find then.

Best of all it includes a photo of the drawing of the squid made using the actual ink from the sac.

If anyone thinks that ink is 155 million years old........seriously.........

The 150million-year-old squid fossil so perfectly preserved that scientists can make ink from its ink sac | Mail Online

I'll repeat the the article clearly stated that the ink was fossilized and had to be ground up and mixed with ammonia before they could draw with it.

[Andre]

Wow a squid with ink in it


I was hoping for one of those big T-Rex things with a wooly mammoth inside it or sommet.

Or if it had red or green ink in it,


It would be like : "WOW Squidlips", you've really outdone yourself this time"!

[Andre]

We also know from observation and experience that is a universal law that order turns into disorder, everything is mixing up and become less orderly as time advances.

Much of your post seems to rest on this. It's a "natural law" that is widely misinterpreted and misused, as it is here.

Its a universal experience CGM. Please show me a single example from either your own experience or scientific testing where increasing order has resulted from disorder?

How many times has science managed to create an explosion that built something, or how many times has life 'popped' into existence, or maybe an inanimate object turned to life?

All of these ideas are ludicrous to the extreme, yet for some reason people believe that by extrapolating them to even greater heights, and then placing the events billions of years into times past that they become plausible. It is an interesting exercise in self delusion.

If a hand grenade thrown into a house cannot tidy the house up or a bombing of an automobile factory cannot produce a new car how much more absurd is it to believe that an explosion could create the entire known universe?

Order into disorder is a universal, unavoidable fact of this universe. Everything is dying, everything is losing information and deteriorating. Please if I am misuing this idea then suggest just one single example where this is contradicted?

Macro evolution runs counter to science, it is anti scientific by definition.

That is a great piece of thinking there, Bilbo.

I am pro God too by the way.

Bilbo Im not out to destroy your faith ,if something serves you well hold onto it, live it and expand with it.

Follow my thoughts here just for the mental exersize alone dont feel unduly threatened;

Who is to say, that the human hands and minds that wrote the Bible didnt bother to mention that there were already an existing group of humans and ancient animals already here, outside the garden, proir to the Adamaic light skinned created race? Just because their story starts briefly and then jumps straight into their own begining of their race who is to say what came before them and over what time span?

Who is to say that a day in Gods time isnt a hundred thousand in our time?



I mean some people even choose to argue whether God is black or white and some use the Bibles own words "And God made man in his own liking".
So they automatically think he is white (like the Adam race) and so they portray God as white in paintings and such.

Truth is God can be no one color, black is also not a color; Although we do say so but in expression only.
God did make man originally in his own image, black skinned ones.


Adams only two sons fought and one was killed and he got the boot out of Eden and then he took up a wife! Are we talking different genetic pools here?

Or did they forget to tell us another thing, in that he grabbed one of his sisters and left with her? If so ,why leave that simple point out of the story? If thats the case and they are ommiting information, then it isnt a word for word, fact to fact history any more, it is already effected by mankind.

Also right in the first few paragraphs of the Old testament,it tells you logically there is something else in the storyline being left out.

I've said this before but follow me here please:

In chapter 4 or so it states God made light and saw it was good.

Then later in chapter 9 or so it then states God made the large light to rule over day and the lesser light to rule over night.

Obviously that original light (not the sun or the moon is cause to suspect it could be in the 'materially speaking' form of the big bang yes?

Whats the problem with a Creator who sets up a system that explodes out of reality into formation into material forms within a duality then he allows things to evolve in their natural order after being created ?; as I see we are doing on more than just a physical level.

Im not saying we came from monkeys here either if we did then the Chinese are the most advanced genetically with less body hair and we cant have that!

Im not only pro God, I practice love for and in God, projected too when its possible.

But back then, people could only see things from their own perspective and the scribes knew it and the Bible is good in that sense that it is written as a story they can relate to of a a Father God who has sons that chose to become lost and went out into the wilderness and placed all there love into that false reality... Duality.

I can see that, no problem.

I can also see that the Father figure sends out his first untouched image of himself in the Son, to go and send all the lost a message about how to return. See I believe also in that same system of love, no judgment and total forgivness also as the fastest way out of here.

But to have a father God, perfect in heaven: that same God, cannot possibly be stained by the things of this world or by our own doing or he would instantly take on imperfection and that would be indirectly by his own creation by his own doing.

So if that is the case that he is untouched by duality, The real 'Original One God' or Alpha -Omega Creator cannot possibly judge his own creation, cannot punish, can not possibly be jealous of his own creation, or that would mean that he has become imperfect through creation.


(you still with me)?


So the tribe that scribed some things that have been allowed into the Bible have scribed things not directly from the One source of all things,the untouched God,perfect love God that has remained in the perfect realm.

They recreated their God, a father figure like they saw on their own lands in their own homes etc. One who would say, dont do this or that, or I will crush you. That is not a perfect Gods love in action.

What you see occurring on planet Earth right now is perfect love in action, it is allowing all things their own time. Love doesnt punish yet it warns you of the real consequences of your actions. Those things are from the untouched reality. The Judgments are all from within duality and will remain here, leaving all within reality untouched.

That is how you can tell what is written from the ONE and what is written by those who were still trapped and thinking from within this worlds two opposing forms.


I write this because in hard times to come people will not except their part i it all ,they will not say ok we were warned about the consequences of our group actions here.

Instead they will curse The name of the Creator for allowing them to have their own way with the world (as was their wish) and they will scream and yell and try to blame a God who is supposedly meant to be in control of all things and all loving and all forgiving.

See the difference? Between the formed God of Duality with the inbuilt human conflicting messages of loving forgivness and punishment and the One true God of reality.

[brucelee]

Bruce you categorically state that you will never ever believe things that don't fit your already conceived world view (i.e. you will never believe the work of scientists). So all of your knowledge is already formed and you are convinced. So It would be a waste of my energy to attempt to present any kind of a case for the contrary, cause your mind is already made and cast in stone.

Make no mistake though. In no way shape or form is your case bolstered by the issue of the fossilized ink, or anything that was said about it in the first two posts.

NO CGM. You got it all wrong. What I mean is,I believe that if we apply TRUE science in our search for the divine being, we would ultimately find God.

Science need not contradict with my belief in God. Like Bilbo, I find it difficult to trust the current mumblings of man's supposed scientific findings especially those that try to explain evolution.

While those scientists are still wondering, studying and making erroneous, conflicting, and ludicrous conclusions on how man and things evolved, I shall conveniently put my trust in the explanation of the Bible of how things started.

At least I have something to believe that hasn't changed for 2 millennia.

[Kev]

Hey Andre they are some interesting questions you pose and in regards to evolution being the possible tool that God used to create the universe and lead eventually to life as we know it is a nice idea, and looks to be a peaceful compromise but it only works if you are a general deist, i.e you believe in a God but not the God of the Bible.

Evolution is diametrically opposed to the Bible.

Let me explain.

Firstly the Bible claims that the world was created perfect. There was no death until Adam's sin, all the animals, and man ate only plants, the Bible is explicit on this.

Evolution of course requires the Garden of Eden to be built upon the bones of millions of ancestors, God's 'perfect' creation coming about as the result of billions of years of death and a brutal natural arms race between predator and prey.

If you are a deist or a theist then such an idea is acceptable but it's completely incompatible to the Biblical God of love.

Secondly the Bible makes it clear that death came as a result of sin, and that that sin is spread to all of the human race as we are all children of Adam.

Christ came to redeem us from that sin, and he came as the Second Adam as the New Testament calls him.

Without a literal Adam and Eve and a literal fall in sin then Christs redemptive mission makes no sense. He came to redeem us from our sin, a sin that if evolution is true, we never contracted in the first place, as there was no perfect world, no fall from grace, no Adam, no Eve etc.

So to your question, if you a deist, a believer in a God of your own making, or you believe in an intelligent 'energy' if you will, then there is no problem in grafting evolution and God together.

If you believe the Bible however you can only accept evolution by disregarding and relegating to myth much of the essential Bible message.

Suprisingly athiests like Richard Dawkins understand this much better than most Christians who don't realise the contradiction and attempt to accept both beliefs.

Dawkins has only contempt for those Christians who profess to accept evolution and delights in pointing out the illogical nature of their position. I for one completely agree with him on this.

Like athiestic scientists Christians should be fundamentalists and stand up for their faith, basing their beliefs on God's Word over man's opinions.

There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that macro evolution (from molecues to man) is a completely failed theory and Christians should be bolder in their faith and stick to what they believe despite what the scientific experts tell us.

Sadly few people have faith in their convictions any more and, largely as a result of watered down religion have by and large turned into sheep and will accept uncritically what the men in white coats tell them.

As for God creating light being a feature of the Big Bang, again you can try and reconcile conflicting ideas in this way if you wish to try and force a round peg into a square hole but there is no need.

I believe in creation by God and therefore any ideas of a Big Bang are meaningless to me.

When God said 'Let there be light' he meant 'Let there be light', I see no reason to speculate a massive fiery explosion.

I understand that my convictions seem almost backwards and retarded in this modern age but I have no shame in saying what I believe.

Mortal man is born into this world blind and helpless, groping futiley for the corners of a circular room.

The reality is man on his own is no closer to understanding the how's and the why's regarding our existence than they were several thousand years ago.

There were Greek evolutionists over 600 years before the birth of Christ. The idea is nothing new, as the Bible says 'There is nothing new under the Sun'.

Regarding evolution, the best I can say is what Paul said to Timothy

'For the time will come when man will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead to suit their own desires they will gather around themselves teachers who tell them what their itching ears want to hear'.

Or as he told the Romans

'For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.'


So whilst I respect your opinion regarding an unlikely marrying of the two diametrically opposed belief systems, I reject it totally and put my faith soley in what God says, rather than man.

Of course I try not to think about the bits that would condemn sex before marriage, the selling of illegal pirate dvd's, the endless lust for porn but hey that is what forgiveness is for right?

[Andre]

Hey Andre they are some interesting questions you pose and in regards to evolution being the possible tool that God used to create the universe and lead eventually to life as we know it is a nice idea, and looks to be a peaceful compromise but it only works if you are a general deist, i.e you believe in a God but not the God of the Bible.
You realise Im going to have to google Deist.

Evolution is diametrically opposed to the Bible.





I agree, but only on the monkey into man part of the term.

Right now some of us are evolving into a better species while others are de-evolving into a cess pit more animalistic existance is what is actually occuring.

Let me explain.

Firstly the Bible claims that the world was created perfect. There was no death until Adam's sin, all the animals, and man ate only plants, the Bible is explicit on this.

Stars, galaxys etc also die.

Evolution of course requires the Garden of Eden to be built upon the bones of millions of ancestors, God's 'perfect' creation coming about as the result of billions of years of death and a brutal natural arms race between predator and prey.

If you are a deist or a theist then such an idea is acceptable but it's completely incompatible to the Biblical God of love.

I see the monkey into man being totally incompatable: but to further evolve from our choices surley you can see we are doing that on a few different levels mentally ,spiritiually some physically .


(challenge question for 4)

Isnt jealousy,judgment and siding with chosen armies also logically incompatible with the Biblical God of Love?

Secondly the Bible makes it clear that death came as a result of sin, and that that sin is spread to all of the human race as we are all children of Adam.

Christ came to redeem us from that sin, and he came as the Second Adam as the New Testament calls him.

Without a literal Adam and Eve and a literal fall in sin then Christs redemptive mission makes no sense. He came to redeem us from our sin, a sin that if evolution is true, we never contracted in the first place, as there was no perfect world, no fall from grace, no Adam, no Eve etc.

The world is perfect, it is man who is for a time lost.

Have you seen the kabalistic tree of life?
It is an expansion of the seed of life brought forth from the to be named later..( plutonic solids).

and all accumulate and form into the flower of life.

Its not a real tree with apples growing off it.

It is the point in this time when what was ment to remain holy and singular became plural and reproduced into duality creating a separate tree of life that has an ending.

The ancient from many different areas including the Jews maped it out geometrically.

So to your question, if you a deist, a believer in a God of your own making, or you believe in an intelligent 'energy' if you will, then there is no problem in grafting evolution and God together.

If you believe the Bible however you can only accept evolution by disregarding and relegating to myth much of the essential Bible message.

Suprisingly athiests like Richard Dawkins understand this much better than most Christians who don't realise the contradiction and attempt to accept both beliefs.

Dawkins has only contempt for those Christians who profess to accept evolution and delights in pointing out the illogical nature of their position. I for one completely agree with him on this.

Like athiestic scientists Christians should be fundamentalists and stand up for their faith, basing their beliefs on God's Word over man's opinions.

Im under the impression Gods words were actually physically written down by a mans hand.

There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that macro evolution (from molecues to man) is a completely failed theory and Christians should be bolder in their faith and stick to what they believe despite what the scientific experts tell us.

Sadly few people have faith in their convictions any more and, largely as a result of watered down religion have by and large turned into sheep and will accept uncritically what the men in white coats tell them.

As for God creating light being a feature of the Big Bang, again you can try and reconcile conflicting ideas in this way if you wish to try and force a round peg into a square hole but there is no need.

I cant see any conflict in just a term ,I think conflict only arises from within duality, I cant see how God would have any part in it.

I believe in creation by God and therefore any ideas of a Big Bang are meaningless to me.

Until the next megga volcano eh?

When God said 'Let there be light' he meant 'Let there be light', I see no reason to speculate a massive fiery explosion.

Why not? An outward explosion isnt just the soul claim of evolution through apes or monkeys is it?

What light anyway Edisons

I understand that my convictions seem almost backwards and retarded in this modern age but I have no shame in saying what I believe.

Good on you.

Mortal man is born into this world blind and helpless, groping futiley for the corners of a circular room.

(Its catchy, but you made that up)

The reality is man on his own is no closer to understanding the how's and the why's regarding our existence than they were several thousand years ago.

There were Greek evolutionists over 600 years before the birth of Christ. The idea is nothing new, as the Bible says 'There is nothing new under the Sun'.

Regarding evolution, the best I can say is what Paul said to Timothy

'For the time will come when man will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead to suit their own desires they will gather around themselves teachers who tell them what their itching ears want to hear'.

Or as he told the Romans

'For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.'

Are you sure he was chatting to Timothy about 'evolution' and not a false religon that was to come and take over their whole new message?


So whilst I respect your opinion regarding an unlikely marrying of the two diametrically opposed belief systems, I reject it totally and put my faith soley in what God says, rather than man.

It was man who wrote down what 'God said'.
Other men have since reshaped it to suit their own requirments: look at the Vatican (their murderous history) their take over of the original Christain religion and its message, you will know the enemy through their deeds.

Of course I try not to think about the bits that would condemn sex before marriage, the selling of illegal pirate dvd's, the endless lust for porn but hey that is what forgiveness is for right?

We live in hope.

[Kev]

Hey Andre, regarding evolution in the sense you do there is less conflict. When I talk about the evolution I am specifically talking about the molecues to man grand theory and not the fact that people can evolve spiritually.

Even here though I would disagree to an extent. It is my belief that 'the thoughts of man's heart is only evil continually' and 'there is none that do good, not even one', backed up with 'there will be terrible unGodliness in the last days', all of which lead me to believe that spiritualy enlightenment and moral progression is not happening at all, morality and spirituality are dying and decaying every bit as much as the physical universe in which we live.

Whilst I certainly believe individuals can improve, the overall trend is definitely downwards.

As for judgement and God's wrath I am with you 100% in that I cannot understand it.

All I can say is that God is Love, but He is also Holy and Just, and a fair and just God must administer justice for offenses caused otherwise people would be getting away with sin, which would mean some people (including God) would not be getting justice for damage inflicted upon them.

Truly I believe that none are innocent, all of us have hurt somebody or something, often without realising in ways we can't see, buying goods that were made with child slavery, polluting the planet and causing death or destruction of God's earth, everyone has played some part in the sins of the world and a Just God must surely see to it that these offenses are set right, to restore the balance as it were.

I can only say regarding punishment and wrath that clearly God does not wish it for us, to the point that He chose to sacrifice His only Son and offer Him up as a scapegoat for us if we would only accept it.

Even in the Old Testament God's wrath was tempered with mercy and compassion. When Adam and Eve sinned by eating of the tree of life they suffered the wrath of God and His judgement. But he was also merciful. He made them coats of animal skin to clothe them. When Cain slew Abel, he put a mark on Cain to ensure that nobody would kill him in retaliation. Prior to all of his judgements, both against Isreal, and the surrounding nations, He sent warnings and offers of mercy. But His prophets were stoned to death and killed! Likewise He has built His Church now to proclaim the message of God's coming judgement, but also of His love and mercy for all those who ask for forgiveness and accept His free offer of salvation.

I'm not really familiar with the Kabbalistic tree of life. It sounds interesting but it is completely clear and beyond doubt from scripture that Jesus believed in a literal Adam and a literal fruit, and a literal fall from grace, along with a literal Noah, so if I am to believe in Him and His resurrection and redemptive mission I must also accept what He believed in and said.


The creation story in my mind simply requires no comparison to the scientific account and just because science believes in a Big Bang does not mean I have to give it any credence whatsoever. The Bible just puts 'God said 'Let there be light', and that's it, so that's all I believe.

Exactly what that light source was I don't know although it's clear it was not the sun as that was created on day 4.

Am I crazy enough to believe God could have lit the earth for three days without a sun? Yes I am, I don't look at the universe as it is now and try and work backwards to see how it was all put together. I believe the creator of the universe could create it in any order he liked just a human computer programmer could create an artificial world on computer and give light without a sun.


Was he talking about false religion rather than evolution? Of course Paul was writing to a specific head of a specific church dealing with specific problems related to that time, however the application is timeless, and evolution IS a false religion.

The beliefs that the universe evolved thanks to some mystical process and that all of life is directly related and arose from billions of years cycle of reproduction and death, culminating in man finally appearing IS a religious belief system.

It is the religion of man, attempting to replace the supernatural with natural, removing God and placing man at the centre of his own destiny, man is God. It's the oldest anti religion of all, it's what mankind has always done right since the time of Adam and the Serpent managed to create doubt in Eve by asking 'Did God really say....?'

[Salty]

We also know from observation and experience that is a universal law that order turns into disorder, everything is mixing up and become less orderly as time advances.

Much of your post seems to rest on this. It's a "natural law" that is widely misinterpreted and misused, as it is here.

Its a universal experience CGM. Please show me a single example from either your own experience or scientific testing where increasing order has resulted from disorder?

How many times has science managed to create an explosion that built something, or how many times has life 'popped' into existence, or maybe an inanimate object turned to life?

All of these ideas are ludicrous to the extreme, yet for some reason people believe that by extrapolating them to even greater heights, and then placing the events billions of years into times past that they become plausible. It is an interesting exercise in self delusion.

If a hand grenade thrown into a house cannot tidy the house up or a bombing of an automobile factory cannot produce a new car how much more absurd is it to believe that an explosion could create the entire known universe?

Order into disorder is a universal, unavoidable fact of this universe. Everything is dying, everything is losing information and deteriorating. Please if I am misuing this idea then suggest just one single example where this is contradicted?

Macro evolution runs counter to science, it is anti scientific by definition.

Isn't radioactivity the perfect example of this? Whereby decay of the atom at any point is random, however over a time period the half life is regular. You can also map out the daughter atoms and create time lines from them to date rocks, ie they become "increasingly ordered" or what ever you said.

[Salty]

What about the fossil and pollen record Bilbo? It's been proven that carnivorous animals were on land before plants were, and how the dominant plant species have changed over time based on the environment (ie one plant dominates, while the others struggle/die off). Doesn't this re-enforce the idea of evolution.

[Kev]

What about the fossil and pollen record Bilbo? It's been proven that carnivorous animals were on land before plants were, and how the dominant plant species have changed over time based on the environment (ie one plant dominates, while the others struggle/die off). Doesn't this re-enforce the idea of evolution.

For it to be 'proven' that carnivorous animals were on land before plants were it would have to be 'proven' that the geological time scale is correct and that rock layers represent different era's of geological time.

As a catastrophist however I don't believe the layers reperesent periods of time but are simply how mud, silt, animal and plant matter etc were deposited after the flood.

For example, evolutionists believe the Grand Canyone formed over million of years by gradual erosion due to the Colarado River. Thus layers at the bottom are millions of years older than those on the top.

I however believe the canyon was carved out in a matter of weeks following massive geological tectonic activity at the time of the flood.

Thus according to my interperation what rocks plants are found in merely reperesents the order they were buried in and has nothing whatsoever to do with geological time.

[killersheep]

What about the fossil and pollen record Bilbo? It's been proven that carnivorous animals were on land before plants were, and how the dominant plant species have changed over time based on the environment (ie one plant dominates, while the others struggle/die off). Doesn't this re-enforce the idea of evolution.

For it to be 'proven' that carnivorous animals were on land before plants were it would have to be 'proven' that the geological time scale is correct and that rock layers represent different era's of geological time.

As a catastrophist however I don't believe the layers reperesent periods of time but are simply how mud, silt, animal and plant matter etc were deposited after the flood.

For example, evolutionists believe the Grand Canyone formed over million of years by gradual erosion due to the Colarado River. Thus layers at the bottom are millions of years older than those on the top.

I however believe the canyon was carved out in a matter of weeks following massive geological tectonic activity at the time of the flood.

Thus according to my interperation what rocks plants are found in merely reperesents the order they were buried in and has nothing whatsoever to do with geological time.

How old is earth Bilbo?

[Salty]

What about the fossil and pollen record Bilbo? It's been proven that carnivorous animals were on land before plants were, and how the dominant plant species have changed over time based on the environment (ie one plant dominates, while the others struggle/die off). Doesn't this re-enforce the idea of evolution.

For it to be 'proven' that carnivorous animals were on land before plants were it would have to be 'proven' that the geological time scale is correct and that rock layers represent different era's of geological time.

As a catastrophist however I don't believe the layers reperesent periods of time but are simply how mud, silt, animal and plant matter etc were deposited after the flood.

For example, evolutionists believe the Grand Canyone formed over million of years by gradual erosion due to the Colarado River. Thus layers at the bottom are millions of years older than those on the top.

I however believe the canyon was carved out in a matter of weeks following massive geological tectonic activity at the time of the flood.

Thus according to my interperation what rocks plants are found in merely reperesents the order they were buried in and has nothing whatsoever to do with geological time.

As an actual geology student, I find your argument ridiculous. I really can't be bothered going into it because I doubt it will change your mind

Edit: you didn't answer my question about radioactive series