Creation Moment : How long does it take to form a fossil ? Millions of years ?!
ilbe...@gmail.com
2 Samuel 22:47
The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the
rock of my salvation!
How long does it take to make a fossil? Walk through just about any
museum and you will find fossils with explanations saying that they
are "millions of years old." Many people find this claim plausible
since the fossils are often from creatures very different from those
we see today. And for many people, this is convincing evidence that
the story of the evolution of life over millions of years is true.
These fossils convince many that young earth creationism is wrong.
This line of evolutionary thinking would be shown to be completely
invalid if it could be demonstrated that fossils don't need millions
of years to form. While most fossils don't come with labels that allow
you to work out their age, a recent fossil find off the coast of
Victoria, Australia, does. It is a ship's bell, firmly encased in
solid rock. In former times, ship's bells carried the name of the ship
on which they served. Found in about three feet of water, this fossil
identifies itself as being from the sailing ship Isabella Watson,
which sank off that coast in 1852. That means that this fossil, and
the rock in which it is encased, is less than 150 years old!
This is but one of several examples of young fossils. Each of these
young fossils demonstrates that it does not take millions of years for
fossils to form. Every fossil ever found fits easily within the time
line provided by young earth creationism. This also means that the
Rock we should be studying is Jesus Christ, the Rock of our salvation.
Prayer: Lord, I hope in You for my salvation. Thank You for saving me.
Amen.
References: Creation, March May 1998, p.6.
Visit Web Site | Donate | Catalog | Subscribe | Unsubscribe
Ken
Ralph
Prayer: Lord, I hope that your humble servant, I'll Be Back, learns that
by definition that a fossil is from an organism. Also explain to him
that a bell cannot fossilize. Lord, I do understand that you can do the
impossible so would you kindly give this POS a brain.
Thank you for giving him so that we all may see a real fool in operation.
Tim Miller
> This is but one of several examples of young fossils.
Well, no. It's another example of the gentleman you're
stealing these "moments" from not understanding what
he's talking about.
But then, you already knew that.
Devils Advocaat
Your source material is full of falsehoods.
Fossils are the remains of once living plants and animals.
A ship's bell is not, and never has been part of a living organism.
Therefore cannot be referred to as a fossil.
Limestone sediment can aggregate around solid objects in water.
Which in a short space of time can form a solid nodule around the
object.
The ship's bell was not found in just three feet of water.
I was in fact found of the coast of Victoria in 170 feet of water.
May I suggest that you cease your copy and paste of this source you
are so fond of.
The author of which has been informed of his errors.
And has been advised against spreading such falsehoods.
After all to lie is a transgression against your God, is it not?
Ken
> Your source material is full of falsehoods.
>
> Fossils are the remains of once living plants and animals.
>
> A ship's bell is not, and never has been part of a living organism.
>
> Therefore cannot be referred to as a fossil.
>
> Limestone sediment can aggregate around solid objects in water.
>
> Which in a short space of time can form a solid nodule around the
> object.
>
> The ship's bell was not found in just three feet of water.
>
> I was in fact found of the coast of Victoria in 170 feet of water.
>
> May I suggest that you cease your copy and paste of this source you
> are so fond of.
>
> The author of which has been informed of his errors.
>
> And has been advised against spreading such falsehoods.
>
> After all to lie is a transgression against your God, is it not?
Just goes to show to what level of stupidity such inane dribble is
directed towards, that creatioNUTS will believe
anything................except actual facts/truth
hoser1605
Modern ship's bell a fossil? Dumber than 99.9%. Thank the lord again
for your wonderful insights.
Devils Advocaat
Guess what, I have been in contact with the organisation from whom you
pull these "Creation Moment" transcripts regarding their use of the
word fossil in this particular item.
Here is their initial reaction:
"I think we need to do a rewrite especially in regard to word fossil.
Apprecaite your insight and input."
And here is the second response:
"We thank the good Lord that it is not often we receive a report of an
error in one of our programs but, congratulations, I think you may
have found one."
"By definition -- and I see we use the same Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary -- the word “fossil” relates to the remains of a once-
living thing that existed in a past geological age. Of course, the
ship’s bell was not a “once-living thing” so from this part of the
definition you are perfectly correct."
And later on in this response they acknowledge that a more suitable
word would have been "artifact", which effectively blows the whole
article out of the water, especially as it was attempting to discredit
the time it takes for fossils to form.
Ken
> Guess what, I have been in contact with the organisation from whom you
> pull these "Creation Moment" transcripts regarding their use of the
> word fossil in this particular item.
>
> Here is their initial reaction:
>
> "I think we need to do a rewrite especially in regard to word fossil.
> Apprecaite your insight and input."
>
> And here is the second response:
>
> "We thank the good Lord that it is not often we receive a report of an
> error in one of our programs but, congratulations, I think you may
> have found one."
>
> "By definition -- and I see we use the same Webster’s Collegiate
> Dictionary -- the word “fossil” relates to the remains of a once-
> living thing that existed in a past geological age. Of course, the
> ship’s bell was not a “once-living thing” so from this part of the
> definition you are perfectly correct."
>
> And later on in this response they acknowledge that a more suitable
> word would have been "artifact", which effectively blows the whole
> article out of the water, especially as it was attempting to discredit
> the time it takes for fossils to form.
You're probably the only person in their audience with an IQ high
enough to read AND comprehend the errors in their endless stream of
worthless BS
Devils Advocaat
> On Nov 19, 2:02 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Guess what, I have been in contact with the organisation from whom you
> > pull these "Creation Moment" transcripts regarding their use of the
> > word fossil in this particular item.
>
> > Here is their initial reaction:
>
> > "I think we need to do a rewrite especially in regard to word fossil.
> > Apprecaite your insight and input."
>
> > And here is the second response:
>
> > "We thank the good Lord that it is not often we receive a report of an
> > error in one of our programs but, congratulations, I think you may
> > have found one."
>
> > "By definition -- and I see we use the same Webster’s Collegiate
> > Dictionary -- the word “fossil” relates to the remains of a once-
> > living thing that existed in a past geological age. Of course, the
> > definition you are perfectly correct."
>
> > And later on in this response they acknowledge that a more suitable
> > word would have been "artifact", which effectively blows the whole
> > article out of the water, especially as it was attempting to discredit
> > the time it takes for fossils to form.
>
> You're probably the only person in their audience with an IQ high
> enough to read AND comprehend the errors in their endless stream of
> worthless BS
I am, thankfully, not a member of their audience.
Ken
>
> I am, thankfully, not a member of their audience.
One has to wonder why dimwit keeps posting the same basic BS
everyday.
Does he actually think, in whatever deluded alternate universe of
infinite stupidity that he resides, that anyone actually reads that
creationNUT crapola?
Not one person steps up to support his lunacy, yet he still persists.
Must totally suck to be him: uneducated, lonely, useless, and with no
female companionship
Devils Advocaat
>
The ever popular Answers in Genesis website first published an article
on this matter in 1998.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/bell.asp
In which they referred to the finding of the ship's bells of the
Isabella Watson which sank in 1852.
They called these bells fossils because they had “become firmly
encased in solid rock”.
They also claimed these bells were found in “one metre of water, they
have been highly polished by surf action”.
This provided the source material for the article referred to by
IlBeBauck.
The full article can be found here:
http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcript.php?t=2718
And these fine people perpetuated the idea that the bell was a fossil
encased in solid rock.
I contacted them and informed them that fossils are in fact the
remains of once living plants and animals, and that a ship's bell
could not therefore even encased in rock be referred to as a fossil.
They accepted that the term artifact was more appropriate and that
they would amend the article in question.
I then contacted Maritime Heritage Victoria and made some inquiries
regarding the Isabella Watson and the aforementioned bells.
They told me that “the bells are not ship's bells but part of a cargo
of smaller (10 to 15cm tall) bells” and that “the wreck site is in
water ranging from 11 to 20 metres deep although some wreckage can be
found in shallower water further up on the reef”.
They also told me that they “don't have information on the precise
depth at which the bells were found” but they believed they “were most
likely found at a depth of less than 10 metres”.
Also I was informed that the bells were not encased in solid rock but
“concreted together with iron corrosion products formed as a result
chemical reactions between the copper alloy bells, the seawater and
nearby iron objects on the wreck”.
And they added that “the rapid formation of concretions such as this
on wreck sites is well known amongst maritime archaeologists and well
documented in maritime archaeological conservation literature”.
They concluded by referring me to the Western Australian Museum for
“more information on the formation of marine concretions on maritime
archaeological relics”, which I am currently awaiting.
I will add one more thing regarding the AiG article, in the first
paragraph they said "These metal bells have become firmly encased in
solid rock".
And in the penultimate paragraph they said "The bells are firmly
cemented in a rock matrix. Found in one metre of water, they have been
highly polished by surf action."
Now I wonder to myself how these bells could be encased in solid rock
AND highly polished by surf action?
Ken
Sounds to me like "Stupidity Moments" makes up their "facts" to fit
their agenda, much like the Bushies did for 8 looooong years
Devils Advocaat
Not really they were only following AiG, and at least they didn't
include the confusion of how these bells could be encased in rock and
still be highly polished by surf action.
Jrowe
to believe this crap? Such a joke... And the whole idea the earth was
created only 6,000 years ago???? WTF!? This isn't stone age time
people... I mean who is this group of idiots? I never even knew/heard
the term "Creationist" until now... I mean like what did the Amish
just receive computers!?
NOTE: This is not directed to anyone who has posted. But directed to
only creationist's themselves.
To all you little minded people who truly believe these idiots might
have even a 0.0000001% fact in any of their statements about how old
the earth is and the noah flood and all this other BS. Please step
outside the box, and look into the universe... How long can a star
burn for? How is a planet formed? Are there other planets outside of
our own galaxy? What does it mean when we look into a telescope??? I
mean come on. Everytime we look into a telescope you are looking into
the past. They have achieved ranges of over 78 Billion Lightyears away
with the use of the hubble telescope. They believe we can only see
that far because that is exactly how old the universe is.
If an object is 1 light year away. That means that, lets say we could
turn on a flash light, and in fact see it from anywhere. It would take
1 year for the light to reach us traveling at light speed 186,000 mph!
I truely hope this turns some idiots way of think into a hmmmm.
because I don't have time to argue with anyone else.
Please watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buU363Rk_Do
Devils Advocaat
When are you going to address the fact that the article you quoted
from is completely erroneous?
Free Lunch
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
IlBeBauck calls himself a Christian and thinks that gives him license to
lie to us.
Devils Advocaat
Is IlBeBauck unable to address this issue?
Free Lunch
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On 26 Nov, 07:03, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Dave acts as if TCP/IP is a miracle and angels keep his computer
running.