Chrom. What do you say to a Young Earth Creationist that states if the Earth were 4.5 billion years old, there would be bone piles all over the place?
There are three problems with that statement. One, there ARE "bone piles" all over the place, by that I mean fossil beds. We find them everywhere that there is rock exposed due to geologic processing, weathering or erosion, or human activity (like making interstates).
Two, you are right that bones disintegrate over time. The only way they are preserved is through fossilazation, which only happens for a small percentage of dead animals. So only if the chemical conditions are right in a particular area will fossils be formed from formerly living creatures. Of course, fossilization can occur in many ways, from recrystallization of bone material to what are known as "trace fossils" or imprints of a creature in soft material that subsequently hardened.
Third, an AWFUL lot of bony animals have lived and died over the past few thousand years, enough to cover the land mass of the Earth. So even if the Earth were just a few thousand years old, we should be awash in bones if all were preserved.
Quote:
The global problem I have is, I am around a bunch of good-hearted people that profess, if the KJV of the Bible said something, to them, that is the way it happened. NIV or Living bible to some is like a comic book compared to a history book. (my inflated example)
That is one of the more insidious problems to deal with, those that are convinced that the KJV of the Bible is the "true word of God" and nothing else. Any attempts to explain about the history of KJV and other versions are usually met with statements that the KJV is the only version "inspired by God" and no evidence is needed to back up the assertion. I've even been quoted scriptures that say how "the world will find your faith foolish", thus nothing I say using logic or evidence can be used to convince. I'd say, for the most part, people who believe in KJV-only are a lost cause. You are better off focusing on the few of those that come to you with questions, answer them very clearly, and then just hope they'll "see the light."
Quote:
The most workable thoughts I have are, be friends for the things we agree on and let the differences pass.
Absolutely. I'm all in favor of dropping an argument when it is clear that the other person has no intention of listening to what you say or that there is even a remote chance of changing their mind. I might still make a few comments in the hope of sowing some seed (as I'm sure they will too), but move on too greener pastures.
Quote:
Plate tectonics, glaciations features, dinosaur remains, layered sedimentary rock formations, coal deposits, gas and oil fields, minerals deposited by meteors or sea creatures all around me. Things that take time, pressure, temperature changes and to them the great flood explains it all,
Right, and no matter how clearly you show them that the assertion the flood did it all is completely physically impossible, it doesn't matter. The last recourse is "God can do whatever he wants." End of story. At that point, future arguments are pointless.
A few things I do like to point out to the less than intractable ...
If a flood did it all, then how come we see evidence in rock strata for a watery environment, beneath a desert environment, which is beneath a separate watery environment. How could one single deluge even create alternating layers of marine environments with desert environments? The usual answer is "you're just misinterpreting the data" to which I can respond by showing the unmistakable physical similarities to modern desert and marine environments.
If a flood did it all, how did it sort the types of fossils so perfectly (i.e. we only see certain animals in certain layers) and why is the sorting not related to any known physical process. In other words, if you shake up a container filled with different size particles, larger ones will rise to the top. But the sorting we see has to do with types of animals, not any physical characteristic such as size or bone mass or shape. In fact the sorting fits perfectly with the evolution interpretation.
There are MANY other reasons, but I'll move on.
Quote:
Guess I shouldn’t talk about the moon being closer to the Earth and the possibility of 18-hour days or 20-day months?
That's a cool link, and a well discussed article. I've always found the lunar effects on the Earth to be really neat, and unexpectedly important for development of life (e.g. rotation speeds, tides, etc.).
Quote:
I just want to know what you do or say. I am not about to try to convince anyone what might have happen.
Convincing someone who has their mind set is nearly impossible. All you can do is be sure of your own "facts" and the validity of your own interpretations, and be willing to change them if new compelling evidence is presented.
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
