What is the Fossil Record? - Dr. Kurt Wise (Conf Lecture)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 гру 2017
- This lecture is from our 2017 'Is Genesis History?' conference. We invited a number of scientists and scholars to teach in-depth on the creation and flood model. Here, Dr. Kurt Wise shows us powerful evidence for the historicity of Noah's Flood from the fossil record.
If you'd like access to this and over 70+ video lectures on geology, hermeneutics, astronomy, biology, archaeology and more, please visit ☞ bit.ly/2WsUHx1 to view, stream, and/or download MP4 files of the lectures themselves and download PowerPoint PDF's from most of the lectures.
Dr. Kurt Wise earned his BA in geology from the University of Chicago, and his MA and PhD degrees in paleontology from Harvard University. He founded and directed the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College and taught biology there for 17 years. He then led the Center for Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for 3 years, before founding and directing the Center for Creation Research and teaching biology at Truett McConnell University for the last 7 years. His fieldwork has included research in early Flood rocks in the Death Valley region, late Flood rocks in Wyoming, and post-Flood caves in Tennessee.
If you have questions about dinosaurs and the fossil, the solar system, rock layers, and the historicity of Genesis, be sure to check out our documentary, 'Is Genesis History,' which features Dr. Kurt Wise and 12 other scientists and scholars. You can also visit our website: bit.ly/3idgpi7.
For more information on Dr. Wise, please go to bit.ly/2zUN3U9.
----------------------------------------------------
✨ Looking to learn more about Genesis and Creation?
🦕 Visit our blog for helpful articles: bit.ly/3d306R1
🔭 Free Videos: bit.ly/3e1HRgc
🍃 Questions & Answers: bit.ly/3d0EG6T
Absolutely fascinating talk. I love how Dr. Wise is so animated and lively when he talks.
Atheists are also animated when they give talks about the theory of evolution but I get what you mean about Dr Wise.
One of my favorite lecturers on creation.
I have to do an occasional word search to keep some of this stuff from going right over my head. And in doing so I see references to millions of years this and millions of years that. It is like the black plague and it is everywhere. And yet this brilliant summation is only seen by some 33,000. I feel so fortunate to have stumbled upon the wisdom of this great man and his colleagues. Thank you Lord.
This man is lying to straight to your face
And you’re thanking him?
That’s a foolish endeavour
@@captaingaza2389 You are a horrible judge of character. You are the one being bamboozled by liars.
I still need to watch it, but by reading the comments; I already liked, subscribed & loved it 😁
So you are a sheep, good to know
TY Dr. Wise. I started my life out as one who didn't believe. Then I came to believe The Gospel of Jesus Christ BUT still tried to fit millions of yrs. into what Scripture taught & that did not work. At last about 25 yrs. ago I began to see that The Word of God is true just as it is written & things began to at last make sense. Now I see very clearly that nothing is impossible for GOD. In the eyes of the world I'm a fool. I can live w/that. I know that one day soon I will see w/my eyes The True and Living God & I will not be ashamed. HE is faithful to fulfill ALL of His Word.
So cool brother. Totally agree. Fascinating talk. Also, I agree about looking like a fool in the eyes of the world. It’s super encouraging to have some (there’s still more questions for me), but to have many really good answers for this stuff. While ultimately the reasons I believe are the resurrection + fulfilled prophecy. Encouraging testimony though brother I’m with you.
@@aaronreimer1869 It is said that it is better to believe and be wrong, than it is to not believe , and be wrong. We do have a choice, while we are alive.
Thank you for posting this. A truly well delivered and interesting lecture. A lot of very good information that layman can easily understand. Especially liked the "missing link" comment. Never thought of it that way.
l think you are a HOOT Dr. Kurt! You have a real ''way'' with language! The LORD uses people so wisely! THANK YOU!
I think you are a brainwashed sheed who can't think for yourself.
Doctor unwise here is not recognized by or in any field of science, he is what we call a "tryhard" rewriting the narrative to fit his beliefs
Why would your lord use people to LIE to you?
I never imagined that reading the rock and fossil records could be so enlightening and prophetic.
I love that you are so enthusiastic about your work and calling. You are highly intelligent and yet humble. I really appreciate when men step up and do their calling in God. It is so needed in our world. Thank you.
I like the spoon to pot illustration. Thinking the pot came first. Because the spoon is essentially useless without a pot to dip from. How ever you could use the pot for cooking and dip from it with your fingers.
The last time I tried that, i burnt my fingers. So I used my. BOOT, NOT SURE ABOUT THE VITAMINS, THAT I PICKED UP,. KIND OF HAD A TANG TO IT? BUT MADE MY BOOT SMELL GOOD UNTIL THE NEXT DAY. SO I WASHED MY FOOT. BUT THAT NIGHT SOMETHING EAT MY BOOT. SO I WRAPPED MY FOOT WITH MY UNDERWEAR AND HOBBLED ON OUT. I LEARNED RIGHT THEN TO TAKE AT LEAST ONE SNEAKER WITH ME,
God help me I love these videos.
Ameni
Are there any fossils of people? If not why not? BTW. Awesome lecture
Brilliant lecture. Dr Wise is right. Evolutionary theory falls apart when confronted with the evidence clearly seen in the fossil record. In particular, the total lack of intermediate phyla in the abundant marine fossils that cover the Earth.
Years ago i saw a photo of a tall tree and a big whale, both standing vertically straight up thru so-called millions of years of horizontal layers of sedement.. and i Knew for sure right then there was something very fishy going on... lol Something to be reckoned that the average geologist was avoiding at all costs! What you guys are teaching us is so wonderful and intriguing and so much fun learning that i just want to laugh and do a little dance thru all your videos! And boy do i love sharing them with skeptics... I send them out as gifts of free education :) Praise to the living God! He has made foolish the wisdom of the world !!!
💕
Nicole Hi. So, you saw two photos which you had difficulty understanding? If that happened to me, I'd first question my own lack of knowledge. Perhaps, I would say, there is a simple explanation that I have not come across. I'd go online and look before deciding what I believed to be true. However, you just "knew for sure right then", did you? Isn't that called confirmation bias?
I happen to be an "average geologist" (retired) and I'd love to find out more about what I am avoiding "at all costs". Do provide some details. Thanks.
You are talking about what people call “polystrate” fossils. Not avoided by geologist at all, they are found in areas where supped rapid deposition occurred often followed by breaks in deposition. Most of these trees were partially buried and could continued to live.
The whale wasn’t cutting through strata at all it was found in thinly laminated strata showing slow deposition, this was then tilted by tectonic processes but not made vertical.
@@JLBorges2803 Hi. Nicola hasn't responded to my gentle comment in a month so I doubt she'll reply to you. I'm afraid she's only interested in gaining Brownie Points for the Lord. Cheers.
@@alanthompson8515 I noticed your comment, just thought if there was a chance she read mine she might still gain some insight.
Great job Dr. Wise.
Excellent presentation
Thanks for this.
Great, can we get a copy of the powerpoint and the data?
It's available with all 70 conference lectures: isgenesishistory.com/conference/
very coool thanx
In listening to this presentation and thinking of the anaerobic decay involved with halting fossilization at great sediment depths, it has caused me to wonder if water temperature could have been involved in capturing and preserving specimens by killing off anaerobic bacteria as they were buried, leaving both fossil animals and fossil bacteria in one cataclysmic act. In other words, if the water temperature was high enough, might it not have created a sterile matrix in which all was buried and later mineralized? Heat would also have aided in the mineralization, I'd think.
Such heat would be present, at least in local areas, with all of the seismic and volcanic activities during the rapid continental shifting of the flood.
edit: Come to think about it, this would also have explanatory value for soft tissue fossils like jellyfish, them having been "cooked" into a more solid, stable form.
cdc3 - You are absolutely correct about the heat. Most actual geologists have no idea how to create a fossil. No millions of years required. Try to find an experiment where any geologist had replicated the fossilization process successfully in the lab. *Many have tried but NONE have succeeded.* It HAS been done... but not by geologists because the Rock Cycle has taught them that rocks form from magma.. they don't. WATER is the key ingredient missed by most, followed closely by high pressure. *The process REQUIRES super-saturated water, HIGH temperatures, and HIGH pressures.* To achieve quartz crystallization requires pressure created by literally 30,000 feet of water... and, YES, the Flood water really was that deep. Petrification is the exact same process. Most fossils are found very close to the surface rather than being buried extremely deep in the crust. However *burial is NOT a requirement for fossilization* at all. Every fossil you are likely to see came from the Global Flood, and they were fossilized mostly before or during burial by sediments. The petrified forests show that burial is not a prerequisite for lithification. *Now you know more about the true fossilization process than most people you will ever meet.*
@@freemind..Oh Dear! Your: "Try to find an experiment where any geologist had replicated the fossilization process successfully in the lab. Many have tried but NONE have succeeded. It HAS been done..." Oh yes? I am fascinated to hear this. Please tell - who, when and where? That's (i) fossilisation success, (ii) in a lab, and (iii) by a non-geologist. Such a breakthrough would surely have earned someone a Nobel Prize at least. But somehow I missed all the media fuss. Please supply the necessary info or, just a thought, apologise for deliberately misleading OP and STFU! Thank you.
@@alanthompson8515 - _"Thank you."_
*You're welcome."*
@@freemind.. Well, as non answers go, this is a good one. For clarity, are you acknowledging that your claim cannot be verified? Or what?
@@alanthompson8515 - Hardly.. The link was included in my comment. True to form, you missed it.. and then deemed my response to be a non-answer.
I found a beautiful crinoid fossil. It's my favorite find .
I'm in the foothills of the Appalachian 's. I find lots of fossils, ...ferns , shells, crinoids.
It amazes me how many, there are.
Why would a flood start to deposit fossils in the sea? Surely floods start with intense rain on land?
Rapid burial of organisms
@@hannahcrabtree599 On land first.
@@jockmcfrog3747 rivers run into the sea?
jock mcfrog Well a global flood would include ocean level rising not all in one day. This would bury ocean organisms first. Then slower moving land organisms, then fast moving land organisms. Meaning that insects would get buried before a T Rex would because a T Rex could move to higher ground much more quickly. Thus they would not usually be buried in lower rock layers. But footprints or other signs of fast moving land organisms would still be in the lower rock layers and that's exactly what we find. So logically speaking a the flood would explain all of the rules of the fossil record, but also the exceptions to the rules. Some faster moving land organisms would become trapped and not able to escape and thus some would be found in lower levels, which is also what we find. Also, ocean organisms would be carried onto the land and would be buried throughout almost the entire fossil record, which is also what we find.
@@ozowen5961 That can equally point to ecosystems being buried. As i have pointed out before Evolution is an interpretation of the date, so is Creationism.
where are the human fossils ??
they would bloat and float and be consumed by sea creatures and later by microorganisms. if you believe in an old earth then most dinosaurs were already extinct.
Why aren't there fossils of people, if there were people before the flood.
Humans were the last to drown with their survival skills thus they were not buried to the point of fossilization.
...Yahhh...Along with visible land formations, the fossil record should be telling...It should tell the story. Only 12 minutes into this but I'm waiting to hear about the Burgess Shale. What are those fossils doing up so high in the mountains ??? The types found there, why would those types be there ??
.....18:50 mark....50 million isn't it ??...Not 50 Billion but 50 million is what is up there..
....25:30 mark...Exactly. Amoebas don't make giraffes and people. They make more amoebas and that is all.
@@LonskiBig @ 18:50 the slide shows 50,000 million, which is 50 billion.
old earth is the correct view young earth doesnt make sense.
and mt everest summit is made of limestone so it was underwater at some point so, tectonic plates were affected during the flood but the flood most likely happened way before the 4,000 years that young earth is telling us.
But alas.
I'm a poor college student who doesn't have money to pay for a bunch of lectures. Does anyone have the actual sources used in this presentation?
Just turn to god.
Is he suggesting the Burgess Shale represents all the species on earth at that time? It is a single local environment.
Of course he is. If he were 100% accurate then people would see he’s clearly a fraud.
If you have an old earth it makes more sense. No need for t rex and others on the ark because they would already be dead and gone
Why are no human fossils found with the dinosaurs?
because the dinosaurs like t rex were already extinct young earth doesn't make sense but old earth creation does. humans would have bloated and floated and been consumed by sea creatures but t rex would already have been dead and buried so that's why they are not together. old earth creation and science work harmoniously but young earth doesn't. for creatures on the planet this is the sequence basically 1. sea creatures 2. flying creatures (pterosaur, mosquitoes etc.) hebrew oph. 3. land animals like t-rex. 4. humans. and this is what the bible sequence goes as well but modern translations say birds were created with sea creatures but in the original hebrew it would say "flying creatures". according to science birds were evolved from land animals dinosaurs.
It would be a great idea to make a video with less than 10 minutes just debunking evolution ideologies delusions.
Evolution is not an ideology
It is science
@@captaingaza2389 You're absolutely (at least) "half" wrong.
If you mean using the word "evolution", progress, or improvement, even then, you'll need to be very specific because, almost all changes that keep and help any living thing to perdure and multiply, is an effect of a cause widely known as "information lost".
And here we go...
...micro-evolution? Macro-evolution?
Life by chance? Impossible.
No fine-tuning? Undeniable.
..and you start to vomit all the plethora of lies you seem to believe with NO EVIDENCE at all. But just white-coat at the "We are chimpanzees" movement service...
So, please, go back to your textbooks, throw them all away, and then start to research based on what WHO is sponsoring, WHO is paying, WHO is financially supporting, WHAT is the objective, and WHY.
The so-called "micro-evolution" is just a bunch of adaptations (losing information).
That's observable. Therefore that fills the scientific methodology.
The "evolution" dragged into that is the so-called (by some), "macro-evolution" where "a cherry is related to a whale" and "you are related to a snail".
This is NOT observable, not even on the fossil record.
Aaaand, no!
We are not just only 1% different from chimpanzees...
That's just another lie that was properly dismantled...
Cows can only reproduce cows, rabbits/rabbits, dogs/dogs, etc...
...the "billions of years, Chronos" god can't help you.
I know that I'm the villain here telling you scientists lie a lot, and this is almost to tell you that there's no "santa claus".
I'm NOT against you but FOR you.
And thank you for your intention to enlighten me.
@@marceloribeirosimoes8959
Everything you’ve said here is absolute nonsense.
You need an education pal
Some evolutionists naively assume there is one "flood layer" - there is no "one" Noah's flood layer. It is pathetic how they try and debunk this guy.
It’s a matter of simple geology, floods do not sepporate there deposits into multiple layers, let alone all evidence of terrestrial environments, metamorphism, low energy environments, corals reefs, volcanism etc... that would have had to occur during the flood.
@@ozowen5961 no
@@JLBorges2803 mt st helen's created multiple layers of sediment within months and liquefaction would create layering.
@@JLBorges2803liquefaction would create multiple layers.
@@diamondlife-gi7hg Mt St Helens wasn't a flood and the layers were created by multiple events. Floods specifically don't create multiple layers.
Are you saying there is evidence of global scale liquefaction? Liquefaction results in very particular sedimentary structures like dykes as far as I remember, it doesn't produce large scale layering of sediments. Even if it does, the majority of the earth's surface shows no evidence of liquefaction. What we have is evidence if multiple complex environments fluctuating, changing and moving over a long period of time.
just the closed clams are enough as evidence for the open minded
Since I was a child, looking at limestone, I saw intricate structures closed clams, sea urchins and many other marine life, that was obviously buried while alive. Not just a couple of creatures in one area, but the vast majority. Bivalves quickly disassociate after death.
@@ozowen5961 the Mount St Helen's volcano doesn't agree with you...
For me, his explanation of how fossils are created completely demolished the evolutionist argument because they're arguing for their theory from a fossil record that their theory couldn't have created!
I loved the lecture but for me it was a fait accompli from that point onwards.
Day is not the same as 24 hours, not in the past and not today.
The earth is not 6,000 years old and the Bible does not teach this. Hebrews 4:9-10: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his." This tells us that the 7th day has not ended. Thus day 7 is a long time span, thus day 1 to 6 must be a long time span. Each believer are to enter into day 7. Also there no "evening and morning" for the 7th day. As day 7 as not ended. Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, such as English or Spanish. This means words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Day - yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, but the word yom can be used in different ways to refer to different time spans thus literally is:
Sunrise to sunset
Sunset to next sunset
Time period of unspecified length. (long time span ).
We use the word day the same today: In my grandfather’s day cars did not go very fast.
Deuteronomy 33:15 and Habakkuk 3:6 "ancient mountains".
Gen. 2:4 “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens”
The events of day 6 can n ot have happened in 24 hours.
Have you entered into the 7th as Hebrews 4:9-10 asks you to?
Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
I wasted an hour of my life listening to this utter drivel from a well informed man deliberately construing all information to support his preconceived notions. At times even downright lying, surely he knows better than that. So much for trying to be eclectic in my sources of information.
Thats christianity for ya, cherrypick and lie till you like it
Bye
If you have a crazy amount of water suddenly pour onto land it would leave a clear layer of random animal remnants where it would be no problem to see a rabbit near a T-Rex, or a T-Rex near a human. In no way would it remix all the sediments, sort by density and leave layers that we have. Why would it dig hundreds of meters into the rock? Besides, layers are not sorted by density and we still have huge amount of rock on the surface, why didn't it all sink? If today there's a mega flood caused by a tsunami or a glacial dam burst it does not resemble the flood you imagine in any way. Yes it's a lot of water but you're talking about some kind of nano-bot controlled super-oober water that dissolved all the sediments in itself, sorted the sediments and the fossils within them, somehow didn't crush a primitive boat with tens of thousands of organisms on it, created a canyon only in one place in the world, left the pyramids untouched, or didn't kill the egyptians so that they could go into their second dynasty period and construct the pyramids right after the flood (depending on what bible chronology you respect). There's just no way this works.
Darwin ~150 years ago didn't have the technology and the support of so many indoctrinated proponents that creationists have today, yet he did a better job on writing his work on the origins of species. If you want to claim this "biblical science" a theory, please submit an actual work for peer review. Have a theory that is supported by actual evidence, testable and has explanatory and predictive power. You won't because even if you find a way to explain how certain things could have happened it will remain only a possibility without evidence that it did happen or with evidence that it didn't happen. Besides, there still are and will be pure impossibilities in the fable so you will never run away from "GODDIDIT".
Well said.
Tdr. You make as sumptuous biased on false understanding of naturel processes.
young earth doesnt add up but if you have an old earth t rex would already be dead so no need to put him on the ark because he was already dead and buried and humans in the flood would bloat and float and be consumed by sea creatures. microevolution has been observed so we know its fact and it would explain how original kinds like a dog like bear ancestor gave rise to all the different bear species we have today. but if you believe in a young earth 4 thousand and something years wouldnt be long enough for all the different varieties or species we have today. The polar bear was originally a brown bear so most likely a polar bear wouldnt be on the ark or a penguin wouldnt be needed because it probably evolved from a bird that could fly. So, all they needed were the ancestors of all the different species that evolved from them. young earth doesn't give enough time for this but an old earth does.
Before the flood, I thought the animals only ate plants, , so the fossil record would not be eatin up,
What flood ? There never was a flood
@@lennon7978 Evidence is all around if only you had eyes to see.
@@scoobnicholas3868 : Floods happen all the time. Mostly in the region of the causative event with the expected downstream impacts.
Some were catastrophic as in the event of a natural dam collapse leading to a massive release of water. But a global flood ? that covered ALL land ? No. There is no evidence for that.
if there was an old earth animals like t rex had to eat like carnivores they are built for that man didn't appear until after most of the dinosaurs were already extinct. a vegetarian diet could have just been for humans or maybe animals but its not for certain after the flood people were allowed to eat meat.
@@diamondlife-gi7hg : There's no " if " there was an old earth. Google how long it takes diamonds to form.
Imagine being given time to record such nonesense, and most likely claim profit on it, like all things in christianity, it all comes down to money
Why are the most primitive fossils ALWAYS at the bottom of the geological column? Why are they always extinct animals? Why did Noah not save any of those animals, which comprise 98% of all animals that have ever lived? Why did he only save 2%.? Why did he not save T.Rex?
Hello there, have your questions been answered by the uploader?
Hello Patrick- Noah built the ark and was told by God how many animals and what animals to take. I hope that answered your question.
Nope!
if old earth creationism is true then t rex and other dinosaurs would already have been extinct and noahs flood came later its only when you believe in a young earth that things dont add up right. most christians and catholics dont believe in young earth so having t rex not on the ark is not a problem. and the flood took place earlier on and not 4 thousand years ago. so, people got to young earth by counting the genealogies of the patriarchs so its not the age of the earth but the stories of the people on earth. And micro evolution is a fact so the animals on the ark were the ancestors of all the different species we have today. So, when people give you a set date of when the flood happened its just there interpretation not fact.
@@cynthia3216
Who would have thought that fairy tales could be SO complicated.
Science is not trying to find evidence that fits your close minded faith. Real science starts with observation and an open mind. Kurt Wise is a nutter.
You are overlooking the crucial role that hypothesis plays in science.
@@kevanbarley1225 Hypothesis comes after observation and is based on it, not on a fable you've been told.
Look at the evidence. Evolution cannot be proven, it is a theory taught as a truth.
@@ozowen5961 - Not true. Not at all.
@@ozowen5961 - _"In the particular, it is a clear record of trait appearance showing movement and changes to structures that show clear transitions."_
*The same can be said about the development of all the different dog breeds over thousands of years,* but despite all the changes and "clear transitions".. *they are ALL STILL DOGS.*
_"Speciation events are well observed."_
*Again... Not true. Not at all.* If true speciation events were "well observed" as you say, you would simply provide EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for us, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. *But it's a lie... so here we are.*
Total nonsense if looking at any fossil records.
Horrible presentation, horrible background, lighting, sound , camera work.