Christian Forums

Quotes below links are from the same. Emphasis in them is mine, my comments are in blue.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2020/02/29/earth-was-created-much-faster-than-previously-thought-study-shows/#6bfe08e16116

QuoteNew research suggests Earth was created in a fraction of the time scientists previously thought it formed, suggesting that rapidly forming planets could exist elsewhere.

Conventional thinking suggested the early Earth was formed through the random collision of large planetary bodies through time. As these planetary bodies slammed into one another, they combined to eventually form Earth over a time period of tens of millions of years.

New research, published in Science Advances, suggests the formation of Earth was through a different and faster mechanism. Researchers estimate this took place over approximately 5 million years, extremely fast in astronomical timescales.

The research team analyzed the iron composition of Earth's interior and compared it to extraterrestrial bodies. What they found was that the composition of Earth was very similar to the composition of a specific type of meteorite, CI chondrites........................

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0375-x

QuoteAbstract

Earth's volatile element abundances (for example, sulfur, zinc, indium and lead) provide constraints on fundamental processes, such as planetary accretion, differentiation and the delivery of volatile species, like water, which contributed to Earth becoming a habitable planet. The composition of the silicate Earth suggests a chemical affinity but isotopic disparity to carbonaceous chondrites—meteorites that record the early element fractionations in the protoplanetary disk. However, the volatile element depletion pattern of the silicate Earth is obscured by core formation. Another key problem is the overabundance of indium, which could not be reconciled with any known chondrite group. Here we complement recently published volatile element abundances for carbonaceous chondrites with high-precision sulfur, selenium and tellurium data. We show that both Earth and carbonaceous chondrites exhibit a unique hockey stick volatile element depletion pattern in which volatile elements with low condensation temperatures (750–500 K) are unfractionated from each other. This abundance plateau accounts for the apparent overabundance of indium in the silicate Earth without the need of exotic building materials or vaporization from precursors or during the Moon-forming impact and suggests the accretion of 10–15 wt% CI-like material before core formation ceased. Finally, more accurate estimates of volatile element abundances in the core and bulk Earth can now be provided.

As already addressed in a previous post, creationists have been far ahead of evolutionists concerning the rapid formation of pour planet. Evolutionists of course will not look where such evidence is actually pointing, since their "science" is in reality as faith based as that of creationists. Which faith presumes deep time simple to complex formation of basically everything. All the evidence they are recently having to admit suggests otherwise, is not effecting that deep time frame assumption yet. Nor will it likely do so since their "science" leans more towards supporting previous assumptions than simply going where the evidence suggests. This is understandable, since natural human pride avoids having to admit we are wrong, even when we know we are wrong.   

It seems that creationists have been far ahead of evolutionists in their observations concerning meteorites as well. As par the course, the two are looking in opposite  directions based upon the completely different sources of faith they have chosen. Evolutionists, seeking to establish the formation of the earth in accordance with their own deep time simple to complex scenario, consider meteorites to be elements involved in the same. Some creationist have taken a very different view which the new evidence addressed above by evolutionists supports in discovering similarities between meteorites and our planet. This creationist theory asserts that  asteroids, meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian objects originated from the earth itself during the explosive events which caused the global flood depicted in scripture. This would of course easily explain the newly discovered similarities and unique hockey stick volatile element depletion pattern they both share. The link below and quoted part of the article from the same address this creationist theory. Entire article and more info concerning the same may be viewed at provided link.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html

QuoteThe Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian Objects

SUMMARY: The fountains of the great deep launched rocks and muddy water into space. As rocks moved farther from Earth, Earth's gravity became less significant to them, and the gravity of nearby rocks became increasingly significant. Consequently, many rocks, assisted by their mutual gravity and surrounding clouds of water vapor that produced aerobraking, merged to become asteroids. (Isolated rocks in space are meteoroids.) Drag forces caused by water vapor and thrust forces produced by the radiometer effect concentrated most smaller asteroids in what is now the asteroid belt. Larger asteroids were acted by more powerful radiometer forces, which pushed them out beyond Neptune's orbit, where they became trans-Neptunian objects. All the so-called "mavericks of the solar system" (asteroids, meteoroids, comets, and trans-Neptunian objects) resulted from the explosive events as the flood began.


Asteroids, also called minor planets, are rocky bodies orbiting the Sun. Ninety percent of them have orbits between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, a region called the asteroid belt. The largest asteroid, Ceres, is almost 600 miles in diameter and has about one-third the volume of all other asteroids combined. Precise orbital details are known for some 625,000 asteroids.3 Some that cross Earth's orbit might do great damage if they ever collided with Earth.

Textbooks give two explanations for the origin of asteroids: (1) they are the remains of an exploded planet, and (2) a planet failed to evolve completely. Experts recognize the problems with each explanation and are puzzled. The hydroplate theory offers a simple and complete—but quite different—solution that also answers other questions.

Exploded-Planet Explanation.  Smaller asteroids are more numerous than larger asteroids, a pattern typical of fragmented bodies. Seeing this pattern led to the early belief that asteroids are the remains of an exploded planet. Later, scientists realized that all asteroids combined would not form one small planet.4 Besides, too much energy is needed to explode and scatter even the smallest planet.  [See Item 21 on page 331.]

Failed-Planet Explanation.  The most popular explanation today for asteroids is that they are bodies that did not merge to become a planet. Never explained is how, in nearly empty space, matter merged to become these rocky bodies in the first place,5 why rocky bodies started to form a planet but stopped,6 or why it happened primarily between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Also, because only vague explanations have been given for how planets formed, any claim to understand how one planet failed to form lacks credibility. [See Items 43–46 on pages 30– 33.] Orbiting rocks do not merge to become planets or asteroids unless special conditions are present, which the hydroplate theory provides. [See page 321 and Endnote 18 on page 338.] Today, collisions fragment and scatter asteroids, just the opposite of this  "failed-planet explanation." During the 4,600,000,000 years evolutionists say asteroids have existed, asteroids would have had so many collisions that they should be much more fragmented than they are today.7

Hydroplate Explanation.  The fountains of the great deep launched rocks and water from Earth.8 Water droplets launched into space partially evaporated and quickly froze. Large rocks had large gravitational spheres of influence which grew as the rocks traveled away from Earth. The largest rocks became "seeds" around which ice particles, smaller rocks, and gas molecules collected gravitationally. Aerobraking by that gas, collapsed much of the mass around those "seed rocks," forming asteroids. [See page 314.]

The size distribution of asteroids shows that at least part of a planet fragmented, but no known energy source is available to explode and disperse an entire Earth-size planet. [See item 21 on page 331.] However, the eruption of so much supercritical water (explained on page 129) from the subterranean chambers could have launched a small percent of the Earth. Astronomers have tried to describe the exploded planet, not realizing they were standing on the remaining 97 ±1% of it—too close to see it.

As floodwaters escaped from the subterranean chambers, pillars were crushed, because they were forced to carry more and more of the weight of the overlying crust. Also, the almost 60-mile-high walls of the rupture were unstable, because rock is not strong enough to support a cliff more than 5 miles high. As lower portions of the walls crumbled, blocks—some a staggering 200 meters in diameter—were swept up and launched by the jetting fountains. [See Figure 5.] Unsupported rock in the top 5 miles then fragmented. The smaller the rock, the faster it accelerated, and the farther it went, just as a rapidly flowing stream carries smaller dirt particles faster and farther...............................

QuoteAs already addressed in a previous post, creationists have been far ahead of evolutionists concerning the rapid formation of pour planet.

So you're now telling us it took five million years, as your source says?    That's a significant concession for a YE creationist.

QuoteHydroplate Explanation.  The fountains of the great deep launched rocks and water from Earth.8 Water droplets launched into space partially evaporated and quickly froze.

That story won't work.   You see, the energy required to throw ocean-sized masses of water into space would have to be released into the atmosphere.   Consider the amount of energy it takes to launch a few thousand pounds into orbit.  It would have evaporated all the water into a glowing gas that would have cooked the Earth.

QuoteFailed-Planet Explanation.  The most popular explanation today for asteroids is that they are bodies that did not merge to become a planet. Never explained is how, in nearly empty space, matter merged to become these rocky bodies in the first place,5 why rocky bodies started to form a planet but stopped,6 or why it happened primarily between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

No, that's wrong, and anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the solar system knows why.  Jupiter prevented planetary formation in that zone by gravitational shepherding.

Occasionally people wonder whether the belt was made up of the remains of a destroyed planet, or a world that didn't quite get started. However, according to NASA, the total mass of the belt is less than the moon, far too small to weigh in as a planet. Instead, the debris is shepherded by Jupiter, which kept it from coalescing onto other growing planets.

https://www.space.com/16105-asteroid-belt.html

Lots of other errors therein; I can show you more if you would like to see some more.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Apr 11, 2020 - 11:01:53
So you're now telling us it took five million years, as your source says?    That's a significant concession for a YE creationist.

That story won't work.   You see, the energy required to throw ocean-sized masses of water into space would have to be released into the atmosphere.   Consider the amount of energy it takes to launch a few thousand pounds into orbit.  It would have evaporated all the water into a glowing gas that would have cooked the Earth.

No, that's wrong, and anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the solar system knows why.  Jupiter prevented planetary formation in that zone by gravitational shepherding.

Occasionally people wonder whether the belt was made up of the remains of a destroyed planet, or a world that didn't quite get started. However, according to NASA, the total mass of the belt is less than the moon, far too small to weigh in as a planet. Instead, the debris is shepherded by Jupiter, which kept it from coalescing onto other growing planets.

https://www.space.com/16105-asteroid-belt.html

Lots of other errors therein; I can show you more if you would like to see some more.

I'm taking a vacation from addressing your run around and obfuscation tactics. Maybe later.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Apr 11, 2020 - 11:56:24
I'm taking a vacation from addressing your run around and obfuscation tactics. Maybe later.

When you're ready, feel free to come on back and show what's wrong with my comments.   I think you'll find that they are quite defensible.   Enjoy your break.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKuFQLkFW7o

Good video about the fossil record being far more in line with the flood scenario than an evolutionary scenario. You should like this one Barbarian, it is by your favorite Creationist to quote suggesting he believes in evolution, Kurt Wise.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Apr 11, 2020 - 20:30:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKuFQLkFW7o

Good video about the fossil record being far more in line with the flood scenario than an evolutionary scenario. You should like this one Barbarian, it is by your favorite Creationist to quote suggesting he believes in evolution, Kurt Wise.

As  you know, I always point out that Wise is a YE creationist.    He's just an honest one, and he openly admits that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."    He's not the only one.  Would you like to see some others?

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

Wise's most significant point about problems with a YE flood scenario is here:

At  this  point  in  time,  the  largest  challenge  from  the stratomorphic  intermediate  record  appears  to  this  author  to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic   series   of   archaeocete   genera   claimed   by Gingerich60(Ambulocetus,  Rhodocetus,  and Prozeuglodon[or  the  similar-aged Basilosaurus]61)  followed  on  the  one hand  by  modern  mysticetes,62  and  on  the other  hand  by  the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same  series  is  also  a  morphological  series: Ambulocetuswith the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third  smaller;67Prozeuglodon  with  6  inch  hindlegs;68  and the  remaining  whales  with  virtually  no  to  no  hind  legs: toothed  mysticetes  before  non-toothed  baleen  whales;69  the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70  and  the  modern  odontocetes  with  telescoped  skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic  series.  Because  the  land  mammal-to-whale transition   (theorized   by   macroevolutionary   theory   and evidenced  by  the  fossil  record)  is  a  land-to-sea  transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method  (transgressing  Flood  waters).  Furthermore,  whale fossils  are  only  known  in  Cenozoic  (and  thus  post-Flood) sediments.71  This  seems  to  run  counter  to  the  intuitive expectation  that  the  whales  should  have  been  found  in  or even throughout Flood sediments.At  present  creation  theory  has  no  good  explanation  for the fossil record of whales.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e4d/0ab89242a5ddc40a8a74fc53361861fbcabf.pdf

Wise goes on to suggest that there might be a reasonable explanation in the future, and speculates on some of the possibilities.   Worth your time to read. 

The only criticism I have from a quick review of his presentation of facts, is that he's wrong about the relative number of transitionals at the species level, as compared to higher taxa.      As Stephen Gould observed transitional forms are abundant at higher taxa like genera, families, etc.

I listened to that twice and it sure sounds like he's saying otherwise.

His conclusions are of course predicated on his understanding of the Bible, not the facts.  He's entirely frank about that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re6Iwp0Iq5w

Kurt Wise on evolution.

I took a look at the video; Wise is always interesting, so it wasn't the usual creationist codswallop.   I wasn't aware that he admitted evolutionary theory is scientific.  But it would be consistent with his rigorous honesty.    As you know he says that the fossil record is very good evidence for evolutionary theory.

"We have evidence for evolution; we have a fair bit of evidence for evolution."   So this is consistent with his previous writings, as well.

And because he's a YE creationist, that sure was not an easy admission for him.   And we should give him credit for that.

He does err in supposing that evolution (and notice he's using "evolution" for common descent, rather than the actual definition of evolution) was based on atheistic naturalism.    Darwin actually supposed otherwise:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Last Sentence of Darwin's On the Origin of Species  1872

And again:
"There is a theory of evolution that is scientific, and evidence... but I would argue that there is more evidence in favor of alternate ways.."

Your opinions seem to have changed rather dramatically.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 12, 2020 - 15:27:54
I took a look at the video; Wise is always interesting, so it wasn't the usual creationist codswallop.   I wasn't aware that he admitted evolutionary theory is scientific.  But it would be consistent with his rigorous honesty.    As you know he says that the fossil record is very good evidence for evolutionary theory.

"We have evidence for evolution; we have a fair bit of evidence for evolution."   So this is consistent with his previous writings, as well.

And because he's a YE creationist, that sure was not an easy admission for him.   And we should give him credit for that.

He does err in supposing that evolution (and notice he's using "evolution" for common descent, rather than the actual definition of evolution) was based on atheistic naturalism.    Darwin actually supposed otherwise:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Last Sentence of Darwin's On the Origin of Species  1872

And again:
"There is a theory of evolution that is scientific, and evidence... but I would argue that there is more evidence in favor of alternate ways.."

Your opinions seem to have changed rather dramatically.

Yes Darwin viewed himself as some kind of new prophet apparently, who knew better than the prophets God chose. He has become the preferred prophet of many, including yourself. Nevertheless scripture addresses his deceptions as has been pointed out several times already. His self proclaimed prophetic gift as it were, has also supplied excellent material and basis for atheism, as so many of them have adopted his theory and removed God from it altogether.

Anyone can formulate a theory and then go about trying to scientifically prove it. As Kurt Wise says, there is more evidence in favor of alternate theories, than there is for evolution. The fossil record may be used by evolutionists to argue their theory, but the flood scenario is supported much better by the evidence than it. 

So much for the break 

Quote from: Amo on Mon Apr 13, 2020 - 09:07:29
Yes Darwin viewed himself as some kind of new prophet apparently, who knew better than the prophets God chose.

He merely believed that God just created the first living things.   Evidence since then increasingly points to life being brought forth from the Earth.   Darwin accepted what most Christians did at the time, regarding the origin of life.   

QuoteHe has become the preferred prophet of many, including yourself.

Rather, Ellen G. White has become your preferred prophetess.    I'm going with scripture, not your modern revision of it.

QuoteHis self proclaimed prophetic gift as it were...

Is only a product of your imagination.      YE creationism has supplied excellent material and basis for atheism, as so many of them have adopted your new religious beliefs and removed God from it altogether:

Glenn Morton is a geologist and a graduate of the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School.   Here's his testimony:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry.  I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question.  One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'  A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute.  There has to be one!"  But he could not name one.  I can not name one.  No one else could either.  One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry.  I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity.  I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist. 

This is the real damage that YE creationism does to Christianity.   

QuoteAnyone can formulate a theory and then go about trying to scientifically prove it.

Almost.   Anyone who knows anything about science can formulate a hypothesis.    You see, it can't be a theory until it's been repeatedly verified by evidence.   And it can't be a hypothesis, unless it's testable.    As Glenn Morton points out, YE creationism does sometimes make testable claims, but not one of those claims that challenged conventional geology turned out to be true.

QuoteAs Kurt Wise says, there is more evidence in favor of alternate theories, than there is for evolution.

Actually, he says he believes so.   But then, he readily admits that that he puts his understanding of scripture above the evidence. 

QuoteThe fossil record may be used by evolutionists to argue their theory, but the flood scenario is supported much better by the evidence than it.

As Dr. Wise admits.   The fossil record cannot be currently explained by YE beliefs.   He points to fossil whales as a particularly tough problem.   He merely expresses hope that someday it will be explainable.  Would you like me to show you that, again?

Sigh.

Why must it be either/or? 

Oh, I am not looking for an answer, just voicing my thoughts.

Quote from: Rella on Tue Apr 14, 2020 - 15:45:53
Sigh.

Why must it be either/or? 

It's not.  It's both.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Tue Apr 14, 2020 - 12:35:27
He merely believed that God just created the first living things.   Evidence since then increasingly points to life being brought forth from the Earth.   Darwin accepted what most Christians did at the time, regarding the origin of life.   

Rather, Ellen G. White has become your preferred prophetess.    I'm going with scripture, not your modern revision of it.

Is only a product of your imagination.      YE creationism has supplied excellent material and basis for atheism, as so many of them have adopted your new religious beliefs and removed God from it altogether:

Glenn Morton is a geologist and a graduate of the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School.   Here's his testimony:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry.  I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question.  One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'  A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute.  There has to be one!"  But he could not name one.  I can not name one.  No one else could either.  One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry.  I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity.  I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist. 

This is the real damage that YE creationism does to Christianity.   

Almost.   Anyone who knows anything about science can formulate a hypothesis.    You see, it can't be a theory until it's been repeatedly verified by evidence.   And it can't be a hypothesis, unless it's testable.    As Glenn Morton points out, YE creationism does sometimes make testable claims, but not one of those claims that challenged conventional geology turned out to be true.

Actually, he says he believes so.   But then, he readily admits that that he puts his understanding of scripture above the evidence. 

As Dr. Wise admits.   The fossil record cannot be currently explained by YE beliefs.   He points to fossil whales as a particularly tough problem.   He merely expresses hope that someday it will be explainable.  Would you like me to show you that, again?

Same old twisted crap, proved false over and again. Same method employed by all agents of deception. Choose this or that short statement by an individual usually taken out of context, and apply it to your argument while completely ignoring gobs of testimony from the same individual to the exact opposite effect of the deceivers argument. Then making claims about history which they will not back up, as in your statement that most Christians of the past didn't believe in the literal creation account, which I have already proved false. Deception is, as deceivers do. So be it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mammoths-sabre-tooth-tigers-megafauna-extinct-ice-age-climate-change-water-a7688716.html

Quoted article below is from link above. Emphasis is mine, my comments are in blue.

QuoteMammoths, sabre-tooth tigers and other megafauna went extinct because of ancient climate change

'We should be quite worried about the warming that is going on now and ... about whether again we are going to see a suite of extinctions'
Mammoths, sabre-tooth tigers, giant sloths and other 'megafauna' died out across most of the world at the end of the last Ice Age because the changing climate became too wet, according to a new study.

By studying the bones of the long-dead animals, researchers were able to work out levels of water in the environment.

And they found a link between the time large grassland animals and their predators became extinct in different parts of the world over a period of 15,000 to 11,000 years ago and a sudden increase in moisture.

This changed the environment from one dominated by grass to one more suited to trees, bogs and peatlands at the same time as human hunters moved in – creating a lethal "double whammy" that proved too much for many species.

The researchers warned that this process showed how vulnerable today's large grassland animals could be to climate change, which will result in an increase in rainfall in some places.

One of the researchers, Professor Alan Cooper, of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA at Adelaide University, said in a video: "What we have found by looking into the actual bones themselves is a signal of sudden environmental change just before they became extinct.

"We see water, moisture, everywhere, which we think is changing the vegetation patterns away from grass, which is what they want, towards trees. What we are really seeing is a double whammy, where the environment is suddenly shifting, the populations are in major trouble, and humans are turning up and hunting is taking off."

It had long been a "big mystery" why Africa's megafauna had remained when populations in the rest of the world died out, he said.

"The idea has been that they evolved with humans and were somehow used to them," said Professor Cooper. "What we see instead is, because there were no glaciers and large amounts of water to melt, grasslands were always present in Africa, so the animals never had the stress they had elsewhere.

"So it had nothing to do with being use to humans."

He said the timing of the extinctions around the world, which hit South America first, then North America and then Europe, correlated with the increase in water.

"What it shows is climate change can have some quite large impacts across landscape-sized environments and that we should be quite worried about the warming that is going on now, the changes in water production, and about whether again we are going to see a suite of extinctions," he said.

Elephants, rhinos and giraffes could all be at risk. "With added rainfall in these areas, we could actually see some quite major impacts on these populations, relatively quickly," Professor Cooper said.

The international team of researchers, from the US, Russia and Canada as well as Australia, looked at levels of nitrogen isotopes from bone collagen that had been radiocarbon dated. This gave an indication of levels of moisture in the landscape, they said in a paper about the research in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution.

"Grassland megafauna were critical to the food chains. They acted like giant pumps that shifted nutrients around the landscape," said Dr Tim Rabanus-Wallace, also of Adelaide University.

"When the moisture influx pushed forests and tundras to replace the grasslands, the ecosystem collapsed and took many of the megafauna with it."

No surprise to any creationist of course, that mass extinctions of the past were in direct relation to an excess of water. We understand this to be the exact reason and cause of mass extinction in the past in accordance with biblical testimony. The above observations and conclusions are in accordance with those of the deep time evolutionary faith, over that of creation faith, that is all. Those of the evolutionary faith simply choose to direct all new evidence suggestive of the biblical narrative rather than that of their own chosen faith, away from the same and toward anything that continues to support their own faith.

In this case, the evidence linking past extinctions to an over abundance of water or moisture, which directly correlates to the global flood depicted in scripture. This is not totally new, in that deep time evolutionists also admit of waters major role in extinctions of the past even to the extent of a global flood brought on by a meteor impact. This of course again is simply to steer away from possibility of biblical truth in relation to the flood. This is not to mention as well, the fact that the vast majority of the preservation of the countless millions if not billions of fossils around the globe, were obviously preserved exactly because they were rapidly buried by huge mud flows or sedentary settlement brought about by the movement of vast amounts of water on the earths surface. This latest bit of evidence is just one more of an ever growing amount of discoveries which more accurately back up the biblical flood scenario than the deep time evolution scenario. Which those of the evolutionary faith routinely ignore and twist toward their own faith account.

The biblical flood account would of course cause a huge moisture increase and climate change the world over. Easily accounting for mass extinction, and rapid development of ice and glaciers of immense volume in the colder regions greatly aided by the clouding of the sun due to massive volcanic activity as well. The evidence of "primitive" humanity hunting at this time as well, is not due to deep time evolution, but rather the simplistic life style humanity was reduced to after the flood wiped out prior civilization and cultivation. The evidence of primitive life is not due to evolution but rather the slow rebuilding of societies and cultivation of the lands after the flood caused a global societal reboot. The scriptures correctly testify of society, technology, and cultivation of the land from the beginning, as the real unadulterated evidence suggests.

Water destroyed this earth as the ever mounting evidence suggests. This world formed far more rapidly than those of the evolutionary faith had once allowed for as ever increasing evidence suggests. Change, which evolutionists demand proves their theory of evolution as the mechanism of our existence, happens much more rapidly than they once allowed for suggesting no need for their deep time scenarios. Also suggesting this ability is far more likely the cause of deliberate design than random chance mutations which all life just happened to already have built within it. Let's not forget the proved possible causes of rapid fossilization, fossil fuel formation, coal formation, and even diamond and precious stone formation which we can now produce ourselves. All of which highly suggest that deep time scenarios simply are not necessary to the formation of the things which we now see, and are easily accounted for in a global flood scenario.

Without question, as time continues and observation and knowledge increase exponentially, the biblical creation and flood accounts become more and more reasonable and or probable. Praise God's holy, pure, and undefiled name. His word is truth.

QuoteWater destroyed this earth as the ever mounting evidence suggests.

So you think the sudden increase in forests and boglands did us in?   BTW, those animals were supposed to be post-flood, according to most YEers.   Another impossible contradiction in your doctrines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL105uNtDKg

Good video about design.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Apr 18, 2020 - 12:05:24
So you think the sudden increase in forests and boglands did us in?   BTW, those animals were supposed to be post-flood, according to most YEers.   Another impossible contradiction in your doctrines.

No, the flood did us in. The theory about forests is just that, a theory. If increased water on the surface of the earth would create more forests, then maybe their theory is correct, and after the flood more forests arose than there were before the flood. On the other hand, they have found and will no doubt continue finding evidence of ancient forests which no doubt cause problems to this theory. In any case as always stated, their time lines are all messed up according to their rejection of scriptural testimony. A fact which even they themselves are increasingly having to admit and adjust more often according as the ever increasing evidence suggests.

I'm not sure what animals you are referring to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTgWP5vZMwI

Imprints in rock of a technological past.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Apr 18, 2020 - 18:30:48
No, the flood did us in. The theory about forests is just that, a theory.

No.  Evidence clearly shows it.   The change in climate as the world became warmer and wetter was the cause of extinctions.    But it wasn't sudden; there was a gradual change, accelerated by the entry of humans into the Americas.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Apr 18, 2020 - 19:08:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTgWP5vZMwI

Imprints in rock of a technological past.

Men were working stone a very long time ago.    Neolithic carvings aren't anything new.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Apr 18, 2020 - 20:30:12
No.  Evidence clearly shows it.   The change in climate as the world became warmer and wetter was the cause of extinctions.    But it wasn't sudden; there was a gradual change, accelerated by the entry of humans into the Americas.

No, it doesn't. This is your chosen faith, not reality or anything the evidence points to apart from handpicking evidence to support the same. Proof of mass exctiction and burial by water and mud flows is all over the world, which includes countless millions of plants, animals, insects, fish, birds, and a great many plants and animals which are no longer with us. Not to mention forests as well. You simply deny what is there, and claim it is all laid out in the order you have created to support your chosen faith. The world is most obviously far inferior to what it once was. It has not been evolving, it has been devolving. These things are beyond your grasp though, being tethered by your chosen deceptive faith. So be it.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Apr 18, 2020 - 20:34:56
Men were working stone a very long time ago.    Neolithic carvings aren't anything new.

Yes I understand your willing ignorance and denial of what is presented to you. The things shown in the video are most obviously not some imagined Neolithic carvings of primitive peoples. You simply cannot acknowledge any such thing and maintain your chosen faith. So be it. This is the box you have chosen to be in, not mine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M492sDmEGbM

Good video regarding Genesis as history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykwgE9MlNCs

Good video on dinosaur tissue.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Apr 25, 2020 - 18:40:54
Proof of mass exctiction and burial by water and mud flows is all over the world

There is not proof of that, that is just your belief which is fair as long as you are using it on your journey to God. Anything else would be asinine.

Quote from: Alan on Sat Apr 25, 2020 - 19:02:38

There is not proof of that, that is just your belief which is fair as long as you are using it on your journey to God. Anything else would be asinine.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/the-worlds-a-graveyard/

The World's a Graveyard

https://isgenesishistory.com/fossil-graveyards/

Fossil Graveyards Everywhere

https://www.livescience.com/8340-world-largest-dinosaur-graveyard-linked-mass-death.html

World's Largest Dinosaur Graveyard Linked to Mass Death

https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/graveyards/

Fossil Graveyards

http://s8int.com/hidden/the-bone-yards.htm

THE BONE YARDS - EVIDENCE OF MASS BURIAL BY NOAH'S FLOOD

https://www.genesisalive.com/the-question-of-fossils.html

1 Million Fossil Deposits Are Known To Exist World-Wide

http://evolutionfacts.com/New-material/unnatural%20graveyards.htm

UNNATURAL GRAVEYARDS

https://creation.com/fossil-graveyard-points-to-catastrophic-demise

'Animal salad' points to catastrophic demise

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/ancient-insect-graveyards-reveal-explosion-bug-diversity-237-million-years-ago

Ancient insect graveyards reveal an explosion in bug diversity 237 million years ago

Two enormous fossil troves in China have yielded clues to a mystery: how insects became the most diverse members of the animal kingdom. The discovery reveals an explosion of diversity after a mass extinction event 252 million years ago, coinciding with a similar diversification of the plants that many insects feed on................................

https://www.icr.org/article/5521/

Canadian 'Mega' Dinosaur Bonebed Formed by Watery Catastrophe

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/scientists-in-north-dakota-find-fossil-graveyard-linked-to-asteroid-that-killed-off-dinosaurs/

Scientists in North Dakota Find 'Fossil Graveyard' Linked to Asteroid That Killed Off Dinosaurs

..............................................

The team of paleontologists from the University of Kansas and the University of Manchester found the "motherlode of exquisitely preserved animal and fish fossils" in North Dakota, according to a study published Monday....................................

This article speaks of 75% of all animals being killed in an event including a huge flood. Of course it attributes that flood to an asteroid to avoid any connection to the biblical flood according to the evolutionary their evolutionary faith.

http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/fossil-graveyard-of-marine-animals-found-in-chile/

Fossil graveyard of marine animals found in Chile

https://www.foxnews.com/science/more-dinosaur-fossils-found-in-ne-wyoming-mass-grave

More dinosaur fossils found in NE Wyoming mass grave

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/toothed-car-sized-ancient-amphibians-found-mass-grave-180954768/

Hundreds of Car-Sized Fossil Amphibians Found in a Mass Grave


Should I continue? The evidence is everywhere. Evolutionists simply apply some theory connecting the finds to their chosen evolutionary faith and move on. Never mind the never ending continual unearthing of one graveyard after another after another continunually adding momentum to the flood scenario, they simply will not go their. So be it.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Ignorant is, as ignorant does.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Apr 25, 2020 - 19:54:01

Ignorant is, as ignorant does.

That's hilarious, coming from a guy that rejects every shred of evidence or proof ever handed to him. Thanks for the laugh Amo, you're a much better comedian than you are an apologist.

Quote from: Alan on Sun Apr 26, 2020 - 01:42:24




That's hilarious, coming from a guy that rejects every shred of evidence or proof ever handed to him. Thanks for the laugh Amo, you're a much better comedian than you are an apologist.

Rejecting your theories regarding the evidence which exists for all to see, is not rejecting evidence. I am not the one who does not know the difference between evidence, and a theory regarding evidence. I view the evidence through the superior enlightenment and faith of scripture. You and your's view it according to the light and testimony you have chosen over the same. You may wish to make your theory and the evidence one and the same, but the evidence your theory is not.

Pro 14:12  There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Ecc 12:13  Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Isa 8:20  To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjA-jYEWlwU

What Do Floating Log Mats Have to Do with Noah's Flood?

Good video.

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/more-dinosaur-bones-yield-traces-blood-soft-tissue

QuoteMore dinosaur bones yield traces of blood, soft tissue

By Ashley Yeager
June 24, 2015 at 6:00 am

Scientists studying dinosaur evolution are finding many more bones to pick.

Researchers from London have found hints of blood and fibrous tissue in a hodgepodge of 75-million-year-old dinosaur bones. These fossils had been poorly preserved. That now suggests residues of soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought. Details appeared June 9 in Nature Communications.

Scientists are excited at the idea that soft tissues might still exist in most dinosaur bones. It would give them the ability to study these long-extinct animals at the cellular level. And such studies could reveal when dinosaurs switched from being cold-blooded to warm-blooded creatures......................

Dinosaur soft tissues and blood now becoming a common norm. Evolutionists simply bypass all concerns of exactly how that could be, and go ignorantly and happily on their way to applying information gathered from such new "evidence" to their chosen theory. Scripture has told us that they are -

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

So be it.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/world/dinosaur-rib-195-million-year-old-collagen-history/index.html

QuoteAncient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib

(CNN)It might be the oldest soft tissue sample ever found. Researchers discovered ancient collagen and protein remains preserved in the ribs of a dinosaur that walked the Earth 195 million years ago......

"This finding extends the record of preserved organic remains more than 100 million years," the researchers said in their study, published in the journal Nature Communications on Tuesday. The researchers were from Taiwan, China and Canada.........................

No biggy for the blind faith of evolutionists in their theory. Now they just move the length of time soft tissues can last from 75 million to 195 millions years and continue on their happy willingly ignorant way.

https://blog.drwile.com/more-incredible-dinosaur-soft-tissue-results/

More Incredible Dinosaur Soft Tissue Results

Good link with some recent discoveries, and an excellent video examining new evidence.

https://dstri.org

QuoteDedicated to locating and identifying dinosaur soft tissues from around the globe.

Why study dinosaur soft tissues? What exactly preserved them or let them last for so long? We currently have an incomplete understanding of how prevalent dinosaur soft tissue is on the earth, and to what degree it might be preserved in this "non-fossilized" state (i.e. no mineralization) in deposits around the world.

As an Institute, DSTRI is dedicated to locating and characterizing these soft tissues from as many dinosaur remains that we might recover from around the world. We look for collaborative efforts with other tissue labs to partner in the work to understand dinosaur soft tissues, and most importantly, the molecular remains, many of which are still intact as proteins and enzymes.  ​