Search This Blog

Sunday, May 12, 2013

The Earth is young, Evolution is falsified and the Biblical Creation Account is confirmed...by rocks??? An Ian Juby-fest!!!

Dinosaurs and man together? The fossil rocks say YES and they say it emphatically!!!




By rocks.  Yes!   The sedimentary rocks of the Earth not only contain fossils, but also tracks of both dinosaurs and humans and other creatures.   When we find dinosaur prints with human prints, we confirm all the vast amounts of historical evidence and artifacts and other proofs that have been presented.   Accounts of man and dinosaur together have been found and compiled by Bill Cooper, for instance, in his online book found in my links list.   Carvings of dinosaurs and pictures of dinosaurs and figurines of dinosaurs are found in great numbers.   Darwinists do their best to dismiss them but lying is a very poor way to address evidence and it doesn't fool people forever.  The finds of human footprints along with dinosaur footprints just destroys all the mythology of millions of years of evolution...just as all the vast numbers of anomalies in the sedimentary rocks should have done, just as the debunking of both uniformitarianism and the standard geological column should have done.   So the theme of this post is tracks in the rocks and lies about the rocks.  When we dispel the lies about the rock layers, you have only the Noahic Flood and post-flood dynamic events to explain the fossil rocks and rightly so!

Ian Juby is spotlighted today and his videos are the primary evidential tool being used.  So here is one about the geological column:





More on the Delk Track is found on my blog.  Two examples:

Dinosaur and Human Tracks Confound Darwinists



I've posted dozens of articles on major problems with the Darwinist mythology about the sedimentary rocks.   Long ages and layers representing long ages has all been shown to be nonsense, but Darwinists cannot stand to even think of the alternative, so they cling to their impossible claims anyway.  I invite you to research on my blog about polystrate fossils, megabreccias, out of sequence layers, the Mt. St. Helens events which were like a laboratory experiment explaining how the Grand Canyon, for instance, was formed by flooding and not a tiny river somehow running uphill for three thousand feet to cut through a dome that it would have simply gone around.  For just three:




Did you know that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible?  Yes, in the Book of Job and the Psalms, for instance.   Ian Juby again, exposing why ignorance will easily lead Christians away from truth.  It is incumbent upon a wise man or woman to explore their worldview and continue to audit their own presuppositions and what they are based upon lest they fall into grave error - as did Templeton and (unsurprisingly) Robertson.   You really cannot be an intelligent Christian AND accept long ages with evolution.   As Ian explains, whenever another piece of evidence disproves a tenet of evolution, the Darwinists move the goalposts and just adjust their myth to accommodate things that should falsify their beliefs.  But evidence is not at the heart of Darwinism, but rather religion, so many Darwinists will lie and hide evidence and falsify evidence rather than face the truth.  From Huxley to Haeckel to Gingerich and many in between, the deliberately deceptive leaders of the Darwinist movement have never had an allegiance to truth, only to what story might possibly be believed by the majority of people unfamiliar with the details of the evidence.  

Don't be one of "those guys" who simply swallow the Darwin line without discerning whether it is credible thinking and dependable evidence.  This former evolution-believer has been convinced beyond any doubt that the Earth and the Universe is quite young and that the Bible is truly historically and scientifically accurate.




Finally, more on real flesh remains of dinosaurs,  something that has become commonplace since Mary S. and her T. Rex was found to have flesh and blood remains.   Once that cat was out of the bag, paleontologists all over the world began to unveil their own such findings.  Makes you wonder how many flesh remains were covered up by Darwinists for the first 150 years of the age of Darwin?  After the revelation of actual skin being found, there is an interview with Dr. Aaron Judkins concerning the probability that there are many thousands of human footprints that have been detected and some of them found with dinosaur tracks or even in rock that supposedly predates the dinosaurs (by evolutionary reckoning)!   The sandal print with the trilobites was one of my favorites, but I hope we discover more about the "Russian Paluxy" in the near future.




Laetoli Footprints Out of Step with Evolution

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

I notice that none of the polystrate fossils you've presented on your blog so far are actually positioned across layers that are significantly removed from each other in age.

That makes them useless in terms of what you're trying to demonstrate. It simply means the fossil in question was buried fairly rapidly, and that's pretty unremarkable.

radar said...

Not so. I have posted polystrate fossils that are impossible for gradual burial. But let a Darwinist talk, Derek Ager, referring to an area of polystrates that were shorter than some of the longest I have shown:

"If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100 000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous.

"Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean 1000 km in a million years or 10 000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous’2 [emphasis added]."


Derek Ager was no Bible believer, in fact he was disparaging of creationists, yet he could see, in spite of his training, that the geological evidence pointed to rapid sedimentation and burial.

Since I have shown polystrates twice as long as the ones Ager was viewing, your comment is, shall we say, interesting. Either you do believe in a catastrophic world-wide flood which buried polystrate trees, reeds and organisms rapidly OR you think a tree will live for ten million years while it is gradually buried.

You also miss the part where the polystrates resemble trees ripped out of their places, stripped of most or all branches and leaves, and most of the roots are also taken. Plus you may not have noticed so many polystrates are upside down or at odd angles rather than standing at 90 degrees to their base? I cannot recall seeing any trees growing upside down in recent memory.

Polystrates are being made in Spirit Lake right now, resembling the normal tree fossil finds around the world, but we see them being made. Most trees float, become soaked with mineral-rich water and one end then sinks down and eventually it is no longer buoyant and descends to the bottom. If the muck is mucky enough it will be buried in a vertical position, if not it will lay on the bottom in conformity to the bottom. By the way, the trees were stripped of branches, most bark and roots during Mt. St. Helens explosion and were washed down into Spirit Lake where they are observable today.

Anonymous said...

"Since I have shown polystrates twice as long as the ones Ager was viewing, your comment is, shall we say, interesting. Either you do believe in a catastrophic world-wide flood which buried polystrate trees, reeds and organisms rapidly OR you think a tree will live for ten million years while it is gradually buried."

You really should read more carefully, Radar. I already said this:

"It simply means the fossil in question was buried fairly rapidly, and that's pretty unremarkable."

Your reasoning is flawed, since you're presenting a false dichotomy: "Either you do believe in a catastrophic world-wide flood which buried polystrate trees, reeds and organisms rapidly OR you think a tree will live for ten million years while it is gradually buried."

You left out at least one more viable option: rapid burials occur in an old-Earth, non-global-flood scenario as well. Local floods and catastrophic events can achieve the effects you refer to, and so their existence is not a confirmation for a global flood.

Anonymous said...

"Polystrates are being made in Spirit Lake right now, resembling the normal tree fossil finds around the world, but we see them being made. Most trees float, become soaked with mineral-rich water and one end then sinks down and eventually it is no longer buoyant and descends to the bottom. If the muck is mucky enough it will be buried in a vertical position, if not it will lay on the bottom in conformity to the bottom. By the way, the trees were stripped of branches, most bark and roots during Mt. St. Helens explosion and were washed down into Spirit Lake where they are observable today."

So we're seeing polystrates in the condition you mentioned before, supposedly in confirmation of a global flood, being made right now... without the benefit of a global flood?!

Well thank you very much for resting your own case. That was fun! What's next?

radar said...

Uhm, NO! For instance, the Morrison Formation that covers an area larger than Alaska and Texas put together. You do not come up with that much sedimentary rock from any kind of local flood. The Chalk layer extends across a good portion of the US and then appears again in Britain and parts of Europe. If we did a very thorough study of limestone layers I believe we would find that one of them covers most of North America and Europe (well, underground in most places).

The point is that you do not get millions upon millions of tons of sediments produced by local floods. You do not get boulders with collision marks that have been sent bouncing along for a thousand miles in a local flood. You do not get big boulders (megabreccias) suspended in high up in sediments from a local flood. You do not get similar catastrophic layers all over the world from a local flood and you sure do not get clams and dinosaurs buried together, planation surfaces that go for several states or provinces, huge flows that make ripple marks across thousands of acres and forces that cut through thousands of feet of rock to build a canyon in local floods.

radar said...

As to Spirit Lake, it is only one lake. The canyon made by the Mt. St. Helens event is a miniature of the Grand Canyon. The layers produced cover a small area. It is like a lab experiment to see what catastrophic floods do but it is of a scale not commensurate with the massive sedimentary layers and the anomalies of them that are the world-wide evidence of the global flood.

If I show you a "Matchbook" 16-wheeler, does that preclude the existence of a real semi that is hundreds of times bigger? Mt. St. Helens is a miniature representation of the global flood. We learn from it, but it did not produce the masses of rock that the global flood produced. You err greatly when you try to use that event to disprove the global flood when the world-wide evidence of billions of tons of sediments tell a different story. Why are bottom-dwelling sea fossils found in the highest mountain ranges of the world and even in the Antarctic? Not because of a local flood.

Anonymous said...

"If I show you a "Matchbook" 16-wheeler, does that preclude the existence of a real semi that is hundreds of times bigger?"

My comment above was in relation to your polystrate argument. I had assumed you were bringing up tree fossils being positioned upside down and having their branches ripped off because it was supposed to imply they had been subjected to the brute force of something like the global flood you're trying to prove.

However, you then go on to describe another fairly plausible scenario in which that exact same thing can have occurred by non-global-flood means, so actually the entire subject of polystrate trees crumbles into insignificance as confirmation of a global flood scenario.

Well, that and the fact that no polystrate fossil has ever been found that covers layers of significantly different age.

"The point is that you do not get millions upon millions of tons of sediments produced by local floods."

No, but you would get them by the current consensus opinion of how that formation was formed. Actually, I guess they involve "local floods" of a sort. And given that it is estimated that it took about 10 million years for the Morrison Formation to be formed, what makes you say that millions upon millions of tons of sediment could not have been deposited during that time?

Another question: how do creationists account for the different radiometric dating results between the top and the bottom of the Morrison Formation? If they were formed within a single year, something must have caused that disparity.

Anonymous said...

"The point is that you do not get millions upon millions of tons of sediments produced by local floods. You do not get boulders with collision marks that have been sent bouncing along for a thousand miles in a local flood. You do not get big boulders (megabreccias) suspended in high up in sediments from a local flood. You do not get similar catastrophic layers all over the world from a local flood and you sure do not get clams and dinosaurs buried together, planation surfaces that go for several states or provinces, huge flows that make ripple marks across thousands of acres and forces that cut through thousands of feet of rock to build a canyon in local floods."

No, you get those for other reasons, none of which necessitate a global flood above all else.

(On a sidenote, why would clams and dinosaurs being buried together be a problem exactly? Haven't run across this issue before.)

radar said...

Anonymous said...
"The point is that you do not get millions upon millions of tons of sediments produced by local floods. You do not get boulders with collision marks that have been sent bouncing along for a thousand miles in a local flood. You do not get big boulders (megabreccias) suspended in high up in sediments from a local flood. You do not get similar catastrophic layers all over the world from a local flood and you sure do not get clams and dinosaurs buried together, planation surfaces that go for several states or provinces, huge flows that make ripple marks across thousands of acres and forces that cut through thousands of feet of rock to build a canyon in local floods." (quoting me)

No, you get those for other reasons, none of which necessitate a global flood above all else.

Ah, the typical Darwinist fact-free no. You are mistaken, there is no local event that is going to form sedimentary rock layers spanning continents and even layers that cross the oceans to appear on both sides.

Furthermore, the incredible mass of these sedimentary formations, all formed by water save for perhaps a top layer involving post-flood storms, mudslides and ice storms. I have given you years of posts explaining in detail how such layers had to be formed by the world-wide flood and the post-flood ice age. You do not give any evidence in reply.

(On a sidenote, why would clams and dinosaurs being buried together be a problem exactly? Haven't run across this issue before.)

Well, I kind of doubt that dinosaurs were walking on the sea floor hunting clams! Actually, this is worse for you than you think. We've found formations with sea creatures like sharks along with bottom-dwelling sea life and swamp life and trees and crocodiles and dragonflies all mixed together! While the sorting of flood waters and the tendency of the initial surviving organisms to herd together as they flee floodwaters tends to keep like organisms together we also find mixes of unlike organisms from varied places all jumbled together in one layer of rock.

No matter what we find, it is inevitably catastrophic in nature and definitely NOT a result of long age burial. Fossils are being found now in increasing numbers with preserved flesh and not simply rock. The Darwin story is being buried by evidence, rapidly, ready to become fossilized!

Anonymous said...

"We've found formations with sea creatures like sharks along with bottom-dwelling sea life and swamp life and trees and crocodiles and dragonflies all mixed together!"

More information please!

And did you happen to find dinosaurs mixed in with cows and dogs and trilobytes? Still no?

And how do creationists account for the different radiometric dating results between the top and the bottom of the Morrison Formation?

radar said...

I will point you towards other posts I have made concerning mixed fossil areas that have varied organisms from diverse ecosystems in situ. Already posted.

Now as it happens, we do not find animals associated with humans in the fossil record, or at least very rarely find them. But since the judgment of God was directed at wiping out the civilization of mankind first, that is unsurprising.

http://www.annomundi.com/history/bryant.pdf = a history of the myth-making that took place after the Flood, with Noah and his sons becoming mythical figures as time went by and the fact that all the major mythologies are derived from actual ancestors of mankind.

Back to the questions. As Noah took primarily one pair of each bird and land-dwelling vertebrate on the Ark, God would have sent primary kinds so that the genetic code would be rich and allow for rapid speciation. So the animals of Noah's time may not have been bred intentionally for certain features since the prediluvial fossils indicate that organisms grew much bigger in that ecosphere. Was it simply the lack of an aging gene that God input after the Flood? Was it an atmosphere more rich in oxygen, as some have speculated? Many of the massive dinosaur fossils would seemingly not be able to live in today's atmosphere...although without being able to see the living specimen we cannot say.

The dinosaur sightings after the Flood are of smaller animals. Dragons would be at most 30 or 40 feet long and the dinosaurs mentioned after AD 1000 are apparently no more than half that size or less.

Anyway, in a one-continent world where man dominated one area and probably walled dinosaurs off from their society, the domesticated animals of man would perish with the initial stages of the Flood, while men were smart enough to escape for a period of time, thus making apparently thousands of tracks during the early stages of the Flood before the entire Earth was completely covered.

In the end, only dinosaurs who were big and fast and the intelligent men were able to survive beyond the initial stage of the Flood and make tracks in the muck left by tidal surges before the globe was inundated entirely. So no dogs or cows to be found.

radar said...

It is pretty silly to see Darwinist comments about their long ages ideas when we can show dinosaur and man tracks in the same layers and can demonstrate that the sedimentary layers are water-formed and all laid in a short time period. You guys have had virtually all of the initial ideas of Darwin blown to smithereens and yet still believe in the nonsense? Amazing faith!

Also, all the flesh remains and reports of living organisms found in layers dated from 60 to 200 some million years old should clue you in to the absolute historicity of the Flood.

http://www.annomundi.com/history/bryant.pdf

Check out this online book and others at:

http://www.annomundi.com/history/index.htm

There is a massive amount of historical documentation of dinosaurs living with man, the actual Noahic Flood and the genealogical records of cultures around the world being congruent with the Bible account. Such information is intentionally buried by historians today, not wishing to give any credence to the concept of a Creator God and so the ancient texts that are sent forward to us are ignored. But if you want to learn, you learn to research and study and bring logic and credulity to the discussion.

James Franklin said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
radar said...

I removed a spammer. I only delete foul language and spam. FYI I never delete a comment simply because I disagree. The first amendment lives here!

Anonymous said...

"FYI I never delete a comment simply because I disagree."

That would be "never, except for the one time I did".

radar said...

What 'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis??!!

I do not filter comments. If BLOGGER decides they are spam, that is another matter. Not me. I see certain spam or bad language and I hit the little garbage can and only for that reason. Period.

Anonymous said...

I've asked this question before:

How do creationists account for the different radiometric dating results between the top and the bottom of the Morrison Formation? If they were formed within a single year, something must have caused that disparity.

The same goes for the examples mentioned in Juby's geologic column video (from about 6:10 onwards). How do YECs account for the different measurements that lead to the assessments made by mainstream scientists? They claim all that rock was piled up in one year. So then how come we get those different radiometric data? Note that they are not random, but quite consistent layer by layer.

Do YECs have an explanation for this?

Anonymous said...

"Now as it happens, we do not find animals associated with humans in the fossil record, or at least very rarely find them. But since the judgment of God was directed at wiping out the civilization of mankind first, that is unsurprising."

I'm trying to unscramble this logic here. Are you saying that because God wanted to wipe out the civilization of mankind, he targeted their bodies for extra-special destruction? As in, after drowning and rapid burial, he went above and beyond that to pulverize their bodies and not just that, but also those of their dogs and cows etc.?

It still wouldn't explain the sorting of the fossils that we find, I'm just trying to clarify if that's the logic you're trying to present.

Leaving aside "animals associated with humans", what about any modern animals at all, even the ones we find in the wild that wouldn't be tainted by human association in God's eyes - there's no sign of any of those in the same layers as dinosaurs, is there?

radar said...

Yes, most radiometric dating methods are based on very long half-life elements and give a wide variety of dates, sometimes even into the future!!!

Carbon 14 dating is fairly accurate if you calibrate it correctly. We find C-14 in every single rock layer and since it cannot exist for more than I believe 100 thousand years (might be less) that means every single fossil is less than 100 thousand years old.

Also, the Flood was such a massive catastrophic event that it flipped the magnetic field of the Earth and also seems to have impacted the decay rates of elements on Earth and also resulted in increased C-14 in the atmosphere and in organisms, making the outer limit of ages therefore even smaller.

But the longest-measured force in history is the magnetic field of the Earth, which we have recorded faithfully since the 1500's. With such a long record of continually monitored decay rates, we can say with certainty that around 25 thousand years (off the top of my head) would be the maximum age of Earth, as the field would be too strong to support life beyond that point.

Finally, the C-12/C-14 levels of the atmosphere have not reached equilibrium, so that means the current atmosphere is less than 25 thousand years old. So we calibrate C-14 with these facts in mind, plus considering the escape rates of helium in granitic zircons gives us around 5-6000 years of age and the polonium radiohalo research that also gives us a pretty reliable flood date.

All this considered, an age of the Earth of 6,000 some years is reasonable, particularly since space missions have shown us that the planets and moons are also young.

Anonymous said...

Three things for our host:

1) You keep bringing up the "little Grand Canyon" at St. Helens as if it's actually homologous to the Grand Canyon in any way. I'm going to assume you've probably never been there, but the only thing the two have in common is they're both canyons with water flowing through them. Other than that, they're nothing alike.

2) This:
Also, the Flood was such a massive catastrophic event that it flipped the magnetic field of the Earth and also seems to have impacted the decay rates of elements on Earth

Not only is there no mechanism known for a flood of any size to affect decay rates, but massive acceleration of decay for a brief burst to return long ages from young samples carries a number of significant implications that you don't seem to consider.

3) Judkins? If you're going to use sources, stick with ones a little less like Hovind. At least Juby and Sorensen don't lie about being a PhD, which I can at least respect them for.

radar said...

Anonymous said...
Three things for our host:

1) You keep bringing up the "little Grand Canyon" at St. Helens as if it's actually homologous to the Grand Canyon in any way. I'm going to assume you've probably never been there, but the only thing the two have in common is they're both canyons with water flowing through them. Other than that, they're nothing alike.

I actually lived for a couple of years in the area, although that is not in any way applicable. I have flown over the area and viewed the post-volcanic formations from the air. At any rate, as I have blogged previously, the side canyons of the MSH canyon are quite similar to the Grand Canyon's side canyons with a couple of exceptions, and they almost were certainly formed in the same way.

2) This:
Also, the Flood was such a massive catastrophic event that it flipped the magnetic field of the Earth and also seems to have impacted the decay rates of elements on Earth

Not only is there no mechanism known for a flood of any size to affect decay rates, but massive acceleration of decay for a brief burst to return long ages from young samples carries a number of significant implications that you don't seem to consider.


Do tell? First, the global flood would have no comparison to any other catastrophic event in our AD world, so there is no way to recreate it in terms of what effects it would have other than to examine the after-effects. If you are not aware of the certain evidence for the magnetic flips, you need to do more research.

Of course I have considered these implications. But if a flood of global size that lasted a year, split the continents, made the oceans deeper and created a new crust for the Earth seems to have put lots of various materials into the ocean, this is not surprising.

3) Judkins? If you're going to use sources, stick with ones a little less like Hovind. At least Juby and Sorensen don't lie about being a PhD, which I can at least respect them for.

I await your evidence that Judkins does NOT have a Ph.D. Put up or shut up. Kent Hovind was intentionally deceitful, much like the talk origins guys, so I do not use him. I know of no deceptions perpetrated by Sorenson, Juby or Judkins. BTW I have been in communication with all three and they are erudite and intelligent men.

Anonymous said...

At any rate, as I have blogged previously, the side canyons of the MSH canyon are quite similar to the Grand Canyon's side canyons with a couple of exceptions, and they almost were certainly formed in the same way.

I don't dispute this, but having some similar side features does not make the MSH canyon homologous to the Grand Canyon as a whole.

Do tell? First, the global flood would have no comparison to any other catastrophic event in our AD world, so there is no way to recreate it in terms of what effects it would have other than to examine the after-effects. If you are not aware of the certain evidence for the magnetic flips, you need to do more research.

Of course I have considered these implications.


No, you haven't... at least not more than very superficially. Let's walk you through this (by the way, if you read again you'll notice that I said nothing about magnetic fields... this is about radio decay): what happens when radioisotopes decay?

I await your evidence that Judkins does NOT have a Ph.D. Put up or shut up. Kent Hovind was intentionally deceitful, much like the talk origins guys, so I do not use him. I know of no deceptions perpetrated by Sorenson, Juby or Judkins. BTW I have been in communication with all three and they are erudite and intelligent men.

Well, by any metric in the real world a PhD from a degree mill is not a PhD... it's what you go for when you want credentials without earning them. That aside, if you look at the "doctorates" offered by his alma mater, I think you'll see that none of them are in science of any sort. So, by that standard, if his diploma mill degree in Jesus makes him an archaeologist, then your IT certificate makes you a geneticist.

I have no doubt that they come across as intelligent, etc. (you'll notice that I said nothing bad about Bob or Ian), but that doesn't mean squat in the real world. You should know that.

As for your continued charges of deceit against TO, you should post your exchange with whoever it was you talked to and let the readers judge. You certainly never showed up on the newsgroup to discuss your objections, which is where you really should have gone (virtually everything on the TO website was born on the newsgroup, and any discussion of editing or inclusion/rejection takes place there).

Anonymous said...

I've asked this question before:

How do creationists account for the different radiometric dating results between the top and the bottom of the Morrison Formation? If they were formed within a single year, something must have caused that disparity.

The same goes for the examples mentioned in Juby's geologic column video (from about 6:10 onwards). How do YECs account for the different measurements that lead to the assessments made by mainstream scientists? They claim all that rock was piled up in one year. So then how come we get those different radiometric data? Note that they are not random, but quite consistent layer by layer.

Do YECs have an explanation for this?


Radar posted a comment after it that is on a related topic (4 comments above this one), yet that doesn't go anywhere close to answering this question.

Do YECs have an explanation for the measurements or don't they? Sarfati, Juby, any of them?

radar said...

"How do creationists account for the different radiometric dating results between the top and the bottom of the Morrison Formation? If they were formed within a single year, something must have caused that disparity."

So give us a link so I can see what method was used and the results. You keep saying this but never give any evidence...

Piltdown Superman said...

No matter how wrong the Evo Sith are, they'll fight to the death insisting that you are the one that's wrong.

Anonymous said...

"No matter how wrong the Evo Sith are, they'll fight to the death insisting that you are the one that's wrong."

Ah... the irony.

Stormbringer said...

""No matter how wrong the Evo Sith are, they'll fight to the death insisting that you are the one that's wrong."

"Ah... the irony."

Aside from the implicit ad hominem and tu quoque, the statement is true. Creationists are not proved wrong, just assumed to be wrong by those locked into evolutionary presuppositions and unwilling to abandon their fundamentally flawed series of conjectures called "evolution".

radar said...

I recently made a post in which we showed all sorts of organisms of varied ecosystems buried together- land dwellers, swamp-dwellers, sea-dwellers, aquatic plants and trees, dinosaurs, mammals all in the same formation. No Darwinist wanted to even comment on THAT post, did they?

In fact there have always been fossils that were "out of place" and for many decades the Darwinists have been putting them in basements, leaving them behind, dumping them in the sea, anything but reveal their existence. There is no succession of simple-to-complex organisms that is related to sedimentary layers. There is, rather, a general trend of fossils being buried in situ where they would be found at the time of the Flood, which is why so many bottom-dwelling organisms are buried in the bottom layers. The first massive flows of sediments buried such creatures so quickly that they died anoxically in an upright position (trilobites) or closed position (bivalves) and so on. We find jellies buried so quickly and completely that they are preserved despite having no hard body parts at all!

Most of the more mobile animals able to recognize the oncoming flood waters (and not living near the sites where the volcanoes and eruptions of heated waters from beneath the ground completely ripped everything to shreds) spent days running from one place to another, avoiding tidal waves and tidal actions for probably up to a few weeks, leaving behind hastily laid eggs, lots of tracks all going one way and often revealing animals in water and even evidence of going from walking in mud to being overcome by water entirely.

Floating mats of plants and logs would sustain insects and some birds and other animals for a time. A few dead animals would have been eaten by survivors when partly uncovered by tides receding and again after the Flood when dike breaks and mudslides reveals buried carcasses. The floating mats would eventually sink and many scientists believe amber was produced in conjunction with these mats.

Polystrates are found that, by evolutionary standards, would have had to be in place for hundreds of thousands and even over a million years while the tree was slowly buried by layers of muck...while not decaying...while not having a root system or leaves capable of sustaining life...and sometimes sideways or even upside down. You expect people to believe that? Really?

Then all the discomformities, paraconformities and unconformities of the sedimentary rocks...with no signs of any age between them. Most sedimentary rocks look like layer cake with flat boundaries between them and 99.4% of the time missing one or more layers (by Darwinist reckoning) AND all having signs of water formation except one or two top layers and intrusions of lava flows. The entire Darwinist story of the fossil rocks is unfounded.