Fossil record better interpreted

[dad]

I have come to think of the fossil record in a new way.
In the beginning, if God made men, and animals just in Eden (Adam was brought there after he was made, of course) then when the fall happened, and death came into the world, we would not expect to see these fossils at large in the world, in the fossil record!
Some creatures, trilobites, and various things appear in the record, however, and seem to have been created at large on the planet at the time. Perhaps for some reason like preparing the earth for man and beast, later, as they multiplied, and were to spread out from Eden. I would guess that they were not made to live forever, as creatures in Eden. Either that, or they were the first to die after things started to die, at least out where they were.
Rather than interpreting, then, the record as one where the bigger things evolved from the smaller, or 'simpler' lifeforms, it would then be a record of migration out from Eden, and the various creatures that started to appear in the record, in other words, first to die far from Eden.

[Jbuza]

I have come to think of the fossil record in a new way.
In the beginning, if God made men, and animals just in Eden (Adam was brought there after he was made, of course) then when the fall happened, and death came into the world, we would not expect to see these fossils at large in the world, in the fossil record!
Some creatures, trilobites, and various things appear in the record, however, and seem to have been created at large on the planet at the time. Perhaps for some reason like preparing the earth for man and beast, later, as they multiplied, and were to spread out from Eden. I would guess that they were not made to live forever, as creatures in Eden. Either that, or they were the first to die after things started to die, at least out where they were.
Rather than interpreting, then, the record as one where the bigger things evolved from the smaller, or 'simpler' lifeforms, it would then be a record of migration out from Eden, and the various creatures that started to appear in the record, in other words, first to die far from Eden.

I agree that there needs to be a better interpretation of the fossil record. The problem with this interpretation, as well as the mainstream interpretation, is that it lacks a mechanism to show how the fossils could have become fossilized where they lived when they died. When animals die, be they trilobites or anything else, they become consumed by maggots, ravens, carnivores, or they simply rot and erode away. In order for animals to become fossilized in sediment there needs to be disasters on grand scales that animals cannot outrun, or hide from.

If a mechanism that we now see could be used to explain this interpretation or the mainstream interpreation I would like to see it.

[dad]

I agree that there needs to be a better interpretation of the fossil record. The problem with this interpretation, as well as the mainstream interpretation, is that it lacks a mechanism to show how the fossils could have become fossilized where they lived when they died. When animals die, be they trilobites or anything else, they become consumed by maggots, ravens, carnivores, or they simply rot and erode away. In order for animals to become fossilized in sediment there needs to be disasters on grand scales that animals cannot outrun, or hide from
If a mechanism that we now see could be used to explain this interpretation or the mainstream interpretation I would like to see it.

The key difference in things we now see, and the record is this. The bible tells us of a very very different world way back then, that really can't be compared, I would argue, with what we have today in so many ways. For example, we do not live hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years now. There are no dinosaurs, and similar climate now either.
As for a mechanism for fossilization, I would offer this.
The planet was new, and the flood had not happened yet, which was a tremendous weight pressing down in the form of sky high water, really squishing and compressing things. So, I would assume a sort of less compressed, looser ground. From this ground also came up a mist each day, to water the earth, rather than rains. Also, a verse that talks about God walking in the garden in the cool of the day can also be translated as the wind, or windy part of the day. So, it seems that there was a wind each day as well as the mist that came up. Add to this a pretty warm climate, long lifespans, abundance of life, like we can only imagine as well. Another factor I want to add in here, to illustrate the big difference is the growth rate of plants. It was fantastic. We see plants were made only a few days before the men and creatures that were to eat them were made. How can a tree grow in days? Yet, Adam, days after he was made, was there eating the fruit of trees, when plants were only created a few days before! (This also affects dendrochronology, of course). Imagine the fast plant growth rate adding to the rapid formation of soil layers!
Then, we have the fossilizing conditions, of the mist, that saturated things with water and moisture, if some creatures died that day, why, they got a good chance of becoming fossils! Now add the windy part of a day, to dry it all out nicely, and we got varves, maybe, and layer after layer forming. This is a taste of the world that was, and why today's rates and processes are of little resemblance!

[Jbuza]

I agree with some of what you are saying.

I still don't see any process of sedimentation from a simple dew and wind. True there could be some minimal wind ersoion, but wouldn't the dead animals at least rot or be scavanged before the slow build up of soil?

Also how is that you have no problem with Adam being not created as an embryoe, but feel the need to see all trees as seedlings. If I could create forests couldn't I create them mature as easily as seedlings? I think the very fact that you point out that animals were eating on them only a couple days after they were created suggests they were created mature like man was.

[SpaceCase]

Another factor I want to add in here, to illustrate the big difference is the growth rate of plants. It was fantastic. We see plants were made only a few days before the men and creatures that were to eat them were made. How can a tree grow in days? Yet, Adam, days after he was made, was there eating the fruit of trees, when plants were only created a few days before!

Do you not see how you are forcing the evidence to fit your preferred interpretation of events? And quite creatively I might add.

Trees do not grow full in 'days'.
And for you to suggest they did, means you are unwilling to accept that the 6 days might have been much, much longer than that.

How is this any better than bashing scientist because they don't want to find God in the equations?

[dad]

I agree with some of what you are saying.

I still don't see any process of sedimentation from a simple dew and wind. True there could be some minimal wind ersoion, but wouldn't the dead animals at least rot or be scavanged before the slow build up of soil?

Not dew, a mist that rose up from the new planet. So much, no rain existed, or was needed, Remember there used to be a hec of a lot of water under there that came up in the flood when the fountains of the deep were opened. And not minimal wind either, especially in some places. We really don't know how much there was. But enough so as that there seems to have been a part of the day that was windy. Maybe quite windy (the 'cool' of the day). Without the world of water having yet compressed the soils, perhaps they were generally much looser as well, less compacted. Now, if a tree could grow to maturity in say three days, or a week or two, imagine how much soil might have been produced. Combine this with fantastic variety and abundance of creatures, and sea life, and the formula of the present is changed.

Also how is that you have no problem with Adam being not created as an embryoe, but feel the need to see all trees as seedlings.

God 'planted' the garden, if you look in Gen 2! He didn't plant man, He formed him from the dust of the earth as a man, not an embryo! Thats how.

If I could create forests couldn't I create them mature as easily as seedlings?

Then you would not 'plant' the forest, you would dig giant holes and stuff giant roots in them, or some other process. Sice they could seemingly grow in days, why not just plant them?

I think the very fact that you point out that animals were eating on them only a couple days after they were created suggests they were created mature like man was.

Not if they grew in days. Look at Noah, a bird was sent out, found no trees. A week or whatever it was later, another bird, and sure enough, a fresh grown tree twig in just that little time, from a world covered in water for nearly a year!

[dad]

Do you not see how you are forcing the evidence to fit your preferred interpretation of events? And quite creatively I might add.
Trees do not grow full in 'days'.

I think we all know this, and no one suggests they do! They DID!

And for you to suggest they did, means you are unwilling to accept that the 6 days might have been much, much longer than that.

And, so....? Just look at how plants were made before the sun as I recall, they couldn't last millions of years with no sun. Also, Jesus was dead three days, do you think that means millions of years?

How is this any better than bashing scientist because they don't want to find God in the equations?

Real science can't question God, or His future or past. They are mainly concerned with how the present works.

[Jbuza]

[quote="dad"]God 'planted' the garden, if you look in Gen 2! [quote]

I see that. Do you believe the egg came before the chicken? Did God plant the plants by hand or was everything made by his Word? I'm not sure that I agree with this, but find it interesting, so If you could expand that would be great.

I guess you beleive that there was a period of rapid growth, for instance when God said let the land bring forth, things immediatly sprouted right up out of the ground. I think I am not entriely opposed to this, but am simply unsure of it.

I guess I had always envisioned God said for instance

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 2

This seems to me that the creatures were created as adults and immediatly commanded to bring forth and multiply. It seems the same to me about the herbs and trees created bearing seed after its own kind.

This theoyr about rapid growth is interesting, but hard to really know

[dad]

I see that. Do you believe the egg came before the chicken? Did God plant the plants by hand or was everything made by his Word? I'm not sure that I agree with this, but find it interesting, so If you could expand that would be great.

Well, my opinion is that He planted the garden He made for man, and in it were put most things on earth, with some exceptions! The plants, men, animals, and even the sea life nearby, in what we could call, the sea of eden! This I believe is why we do not see most of these things in the fossil record, they were just near eden to start! Why would God even need a garden for man an beast if the new planet were all a big paradise? Apparently, the world may not have been yet ready for the spread of man and plant and beast.
Trilobites, and canbrian type creatures were there, perhaps preparing the world for our spread. Death entered with the fall, and now we see all those things dying, and getting fossilized. Smaller things tend to die first, so these things ended up generally down near the bottom of the record. As time went on, in the rapidly depositing soils, other things started to die as well, bigger things. Then, as time went on, flowering plants, dinosaurs, birds, etc, all found their way to the earth at large, and found their place in the record. To the evolutionist. the "appeared" in the record!

I guess you beleive that there was a period of rapid growth, for instance when God said let the land bring forth, things immediatly sprouted right up out of the ground. I think I am not entriely opposed to this, but am simply unsure of it.

Personally, I see it as I just described it, as it needs to fit the evidence. The land that sprang forth could mostly be eden at first? Also, of course the other things going on in the earth outside, to some extent.

I guess I had always envisioned God said for instance

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 2

This seems to me that the creatures were created as adults and immediatly commanded to bring forth and multiply

.

Well, yes, me too. But here's the trick. What if they were just a pair of each creature made, and it was all near or in eden, including sea life? (except for cambrian type plants and creepy things and whatnots-out in the earth all over.)
This would make some sense, in that it fit's the physical evidence of the fossil record. Also, remember, one day God brought all the animals to Adam, so he could name them! I used to wonder about that. If the world was full of animals how could they all come to Adam?! I think a teacher in school once said it was just a sampling of each kind of animal, but, hey, that may not be the case if they were all in eden!

It seems the same to me about the herbs and trees created bearing seed after its own kind.

Well, yes, that was Adam's job, to keep the garden, after all! They were bustin out all over, the plants.

[thereal]

[/quote dad]Real science can't question God, or His future or past. They are mainly concerned with how the present works.

This second statement is absolutely untrue, and insulting to scientists in just about any field I can think of! Give me an example of one branch of science that does not look at past events and only focuses on the present.

Also, I am really struggling to see the basis in your ideas of earth's formation. How is it that trees once (in the days of Eden) grew to maturity in mere days but now do not. Do you have any kind of mechanism in mind for this change? I realize that healthy debate is the cornerstone of science, but do you have any support whatsoever for what you are claiming?

[dad]

[/quote dad]Real science can't question God, or His future or past. They are mainly concerned with how the present works.

Thats right, they can't. But how the present works, is assumed into the future, for example, and they say the sun will burn up eventually. We know it never will by the bible. Yet real scientists buy into this. The problem is they take how the present works, and believe all past and future must work just the same, with no possible evidence for this claim, yet it is the core belief for all old age claims, in every branch of knowledge.

This second statement is absolutely untrue, and insulting to scientists in just about any field I can think of! Give me an example of one branch of science that does not look at past events and only focuses on the present.

You must have misunderstood the point. The present physical only universe is the basis for all assumptions of how the past or future will be or was, yet no evidence for this unknown is given for this belief, because it can't be. Millions of people are insulted at having their, and other children taught that some creator speck created the universe billions of years before the actual creation date of the bible.

Also, I am really struggling to see the basis in your ideas of earth's formation. How is it that trees once (in the days of Eden) grew to maturity in mere days but now do not.

I would say that the universe was both physical and spiritual, merged, and separated at some point, so we are now left in a physical only one, till the new heavens appear, as the bible says, and this temporal universe passes away. The fabric of the universe must change, and, in my opinion, has changed in the past as well. There will be no decay and death in heaven, or the new eternal heavens, for example, so no radioactive decay! We are talking a lot of big changes here.

Do you have any kind of mechanism in mind for this change? I realize that healthy debate is the cornerstone of science, but do you have any support whatsoever for what you are claiming?

It is a physical only past and future that you cannot evidence in any way but pure, naked belief and assumption! That is why I feel trying to drag the present physical only universe into the future or far past is of course not a part of science, but science, falsely so called!
As for beliefs of the past, many have them, and if you admit that ball and chaining the future and past only to the present is also belief, and that you can only believe or assume it, we can talk support for beliefs, of which I unlike the old agers have plenty! If you want to claim old age present only based assumptions of the future are science, first you must evidence it, and prove the claim is testable observable, etc, and solid science. Since you won't be able to do that, I suggest admitting it is not science.

[Jbuza]

It is a physical only past and future that you cannot evidence in any way but pure, naked belief and assumption! That is why I feel trying to drag the present physical only universe into the future or far past is of course not a part of science, but science, falsely so called!

<cheer> <applause>

[Jbuza]

I still see no mechanism whereby the lifeforms that dies would become fossilized in sediment. I see no biblical evidence to suggest that only part of the land or only part of the sea gave forth life. IT seems that the fossils would ahve laid on the ground and rotted if nothing else.

I do find your idea about more rapid plant growth interesting. I think that weterings from beneath could increase the rapidity of growth compared with rain. I can think of no evidence for the growth rates you are proposing unless it was the Word of God that caused the earth to bring forth vegetation.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

It is a physical only past and future that you cannot evidence in any way but pure, naked belief and assumption! That is why I feel trying to drag the present physical only universe into the future or far past is of course not a part of science, but science, falsely so called!

<cheer> <applause>

So why even bother trying to explain the fossils. They could have just been created just as they are.

I can also claim that before the fall ticks ate grass and sharks ate seaweed.

I also suppose that as trees grew at miraculous rates that the seeds that a 200ft tall mature oak tree would fall to the earth and also themselves grow at fantastic rates. Thus foresting the world in a matter of hours.

But I have a few questions, did the snake bounce around or did it once have legs?

Also why do they no longer eat dust?

And finally what happened to the flaming sword?

[Ark~Magic]

Also why do they no longer eat dust?

This is a refference to how their mouths would take in dirth as they slithered around, it's not that they literally lived off of eating dust.