Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)

It was the very issue of Coal, and how it was formed, that caused men like Buffon, and Hutton, and Lyell, to speculated that the earth was many 1000's (or millions) of years old, for the simple reason that, if each coal seam was the result of a Forest, then there would not be enought time for that (100+) forests to grow and be buried within the 6,000 year time frame of Genesis.But for more on how the (highly speculative age of the) Earth came to be 4.5 "Billion" years: See http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/6-earthage.htmRandy

Jon Said: The TOE (i.e. Theory of Evolution) is not founded on any such thing. The TOE works even if there were a creator involved in the creation.Randy: That is not the way it is taught in public Schools.Also, if (which is a virtual certainty) there was a Creator involved in the (Slow) Creation Process then what we have is Slow Creation -- NOT evolution.Randy

Here is why I think Radiometric Dating is highly questionable -- if not a total fabrication that is riddled with error.Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age

Edge said: You seem ready to condemn evolutionists at the slightest whim, and yet for a YEC, you need more firsthand evidence.Randy: No not at the slightest whim, but because they attempt to dismiss clear evidence that points to a Creator. Now perhaps if they could actually observe nature making a single homochiralic protein molecule they would have something to boast about, but as it now stands, we still need 40,000 of them (with 600 different types), along with DNA, RNA, ribosomes, a cell membrane, and a MORE COMPLEX host organism just for that one single living bacterium to be able to replicate itself.God forbid that anyone should call an insurmoutable Wall what it is (i.e. an insurmountable wall).

Edge Said: Nonsense. Please find a reference stating that the formation of coal was Lyell's only line of reference in deducing an old earth. In fact it was not even his earliest evidence. As the site below shows, Lyell was writing about uniformitarianism about a decade before visiting the Nova Scotia coal fields.Randy: I NEVER said that this was his ONLY line of evidence, for he also grossly distorted the facts regarding Niagara Falls -- as is clearly documented by Ian Taylor in his Book "In the Minds of Men."As to the issue of coal and how it was formed, this was in fact, one of the primary lines of reasoning in the minds of "Geologists" and Naturalistic Philosophers during the period from about 1750 to 1850. This was also one of the Primary reasons why John William Dawson was so adamant that the upright trees in the Nova Scotia Strata were in situ. And in my opinion, it was not because the facts supported such beliefs, but because that was the Popular view that was being propagated at this time in England, Germany, the United States and Candada. And it is a fact that few people are willing to go against the crowd -- even when the evidence dictates that they should.Also, you may not know it, but there are very similar deposits of Coal in England (and Germany and France) that I am Certain Mr Lyell had seen LONG BEFORE he visited the (very similar) Nova Scotia Strata, and before he wrote his book. You also may not know it but there were other authors who wrote during this time, such as George Fairholme who documented an 80 foot fossil tree that Fairholme that was at an angle to the strata (neither horizontal or vertical to it).For example at: Ready Always to Give an Answer - Apologetics Press
We find the following remarks:
"This type of phenomenon is not an isolated one. Rupke produced a photograph of a lofty trunk, exposed in a sandstone quarry near Edinburgh [Scotland], which measured no less than 25 meters and, intersecting 10 or 12 different strata, leaned at an angle of about 40 (1973, p. 154). Thus, this particular tree must have been buried while falling down! In fact, one scientist who examined the tree, George Fairholme, commented on the fact that an inclined trunk constitutes a much stronger testimony for rapidity in deposition than an upright one because...while the latter might be supposed to have been capable of retaining an upright position, in a semi-fluid mass, for a long time, by the mere laws of gravity, the other must, by the very same laws, have fallen, from its inclined to a horizontal position, had it not been retained in its inclined position by the rapid accumulation of its present stony matrix (1837, p. 394, emp. added)."Randy

Re: Reference to a lesson plan or textbook, please?It is a Fact that any reference to God, or a God, or a Creator in public schools of America is against the Law in just about every state -- even though that is exactly what is (based on the most profound and scientifically sound science and the overwhelming "odds" against the impossible) staring us all in the face.But since I don't have a reference on this, Why don't you provide a reference that says I am lying.

What I say with regard to the Hoax of Radiometric Dating is Well documented.Here are the Links for any and all who care to check this out for themselves.Is Radiometric Dating Accurate? – Earth Age
What About Carbon-14 Dating of “Old” Dinosaur Bones? – Earth Age
Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
Page not found – How Does a Cryptocurrency ETF Work?
The Radiometric Dating Game
More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
Page not found – Earth Age
http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/6-earthage.htm
http://worldbydesign.org/...h/c14dating/datingdinosaurs.html
Geological Conflict | Answers in Genesis
Revolution Against Evolution – A Revolution of the Love of God
Much-Inflated Carbon-14 Dates from Subfossil Trees | Answers in Genesis
http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i5f.htm
The Supposed Consistency of Evolution’s Long Ages | Answers in Genesis
http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html
How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.Net

Edge: So you admit that there were other lines of evidence that Lyell used. That is not the impression you gave earlier when you said:Randy: "It was the very issue of Coal, and how it was formed, that caused men like Buffon, and Hutton, and Lyell, to speculated that the earth was many 1000's (or millions) of years old, ...Randy: It was the MAIN issue / factor, that led to speculation about an old earth. Of this I am (almost) certain.

Edge: This makes no sense at all. It would mean that the hydraulic properties of the tree would have been the same as the grains of sand that were deposited around it.Randy: It simply means that the tree was (most likely) floating (in water) at an angle while horizontal strata was rapidly deposted around it.In fact, one scientist who examined the tree, George Fairholme, commented on the fact that an inclined trunk constitutes a much stronger testimony for rapidity in deposition than an upright one because"...while the latter might be supposed to have been capable of retaining an upright position, in a semi-fluid mass, for a long time, by the mere laws of gravity, the other must, by the very same laws, have fallen, from its inclined to a horizontal position, had it not been retained in its inclined position by the rapid accumulation of its present stony matrix (1837, p. 394, emp. added)."Yes, an inclined tree could be buried in situ by a rapidly deposited sand member.No, not in situ, as it was trees will either grow vertically, or fall over. It is extremely rare that a tree will assert a diagonal position unless it is resing against something -- which in this case -- (according to Fairholme) -- it was not: meaning that it was buried while being transported and was not in situ.

Edge asked: By the way, do you EVER read any mainstream publications except for quote mining purposes?Randy: Here are some of the materials that I researched before writing my paper at Is Radiometric Dating Accurate? – Earth AgeReferences
1. Morris, John, "The Young Earth," pp.55-56;
2. Taylor, Paul S., Illustrated Origins Answer Book, pp. 12-13, 61-62.
3. Funkhouser, John G., and Naughton, John J., Journal of Geophysical
Research, vol. 73, No. 14, July 1968, pp.4601-4607.
4. Williams, A.R., Creation ex nihilo Technical Journal, vol. 6, Part
1, 1992, p.4;
5. Podosek, F.A., et al, Nature, vol. 334, 1988, pp.607-609.
6. Lubenow, Marvin, "The Dating Game" Chapter in "Bones of Contention"
pp. 247-266.
7. Reader, John, "Missing Links," pp.205-209;
8. Nature, vol. 284, 3/20/80, pp. 225-234.
9. Morris, John, "The Young Earth," pp. 57-60.
10. Austin, S.A., "Grand Canyon--Monument To Catastrophe," ICR,
pp.120-131.
11. Ford, T.D., et al., Geological Society of America Bulletin 83,
Jan. 1972, pp. 223-226.
12. McKee, E.H., and Noble, D.C., Geological Society of America
Bulletin 87, Aug. 1976, pp.1188-1190.
13. Simak, C.D., "Trilobite, Dinosaur and Man," pp. 50-51.
14. Morris, John, "The Young Earth," pp.60-61.
15. Patterson, C.C., Geochemica et Cosmochemica Acta, vol. 10, 1956,
pp.230-237.
16. Williams, A.R., Creation Ex Nihilo Tech. Journal, vol. 6, Part 1,
1992, pp.2-5.
17. Petersen, D. "Mysteries of Creation," p.46;
18. Science, vol. 167, 1/30/70, pp. 466-468, 479-480.
19. ibid. ref. 18, pp. 479-480; Note: Though the age calculation (for
sample No. 65,35) was not given, the ratios of Potasium -40 (K)/
Argon-40 (Ar) were listed in Table 1 on p. 480, thus allowing the
age to be calculated. And though I agree with the writers of this
article that this sample has an excess amount of Argon-40, I also
think it is highly probable that the argon which contaminated this
sample also contaminated all of the other samples, and that this
breccia was simply "contaminated" with more Argon.

Randy: But since I don't have a reference on this, Why don't you provide a reference that says I am lying.Jon F: That's not the way it works. You either support your claims, or your claims are worthless and meaningless. Since you admit you have no reference, it immediately follows ...Randy: It is a fact that many (if not most) science textbooks today state that they either have "no proof" of a Creator, or that most scientists today believe, or accept that we "evolved" from lower life-forms -- and that they further believe that we somehow began from one-celled organisms -- that somehow began from chemicals, or bubbles, or an asteroid impact, or a comet impact, or from space aliens -- anything but God. Have I done a study on this? NO, but I am virtually certain that it is true. Could I find something on this on the internet that backs up what I am saying (in about 30-60 minutes)? Probably could. Will I do so? Perhaps I will, and perhaps not.

Re: Evidence that Coal formation was the one of the central (if not the primary) factor in the Age of the earth debate.Here is your Reference: Im Steinkohlenwald = In the Coal-forming Forest,
By Wilhelm Blsche, 1906 -- 1928 with various publication dates in between. Good luck translating it -- as I, myself have had to do.It can be obtaied from ZVAB - Zentrales Verzeichnis Antiquarischer Bcher | Antiquarische und vergriffene Bcher online bestellen for about $6.00 -- $30.00 plus shipping.

Since you have already translated it could you just quote the relevant passages. Then you can explain why this reference is about a century after the debate got going.Response: Bolsche discusses this, along with Compte de Buffon, and Charles Lyell and how they came to their respective conclusions about the Age of the Earth and how the issue of coal formation played a significant part (if coals were formed via in situ forest growth). If you don't believe me then buy the book for yourself and look it up, Or you can simply read this web page and look up the refs that they give (that are in English). See Link below. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

Jon F Said: "... the US Constitution and the Supreme Court have established that religious explanations do not belong in science classes. We do have no scientific proof of a creator,..."Dear John: If, based on what we KNOW about the complexity of the cell (i.e. that not even the most basic Protein molecule -- of only 8 amino acids -- has ever been observed to form naturally) tells us that Life as we know it (or anything close to it) is impossible by any method known to man, then the only other possibility it that of Creation. This is not "religious" but science and Logic. On the other hand, based on these facts of basic biology, anyone who believes in Evolution is doing so out of their own choice: by faith -- and a LOT more of it than what it takes to believe in a Creator.Here are more details as to what I am taling about
Evolution Theory vs Creationism – How Old Is The Earth? – Earth AgePS: If you disagree then, by all means, tell us how you believe that that first Mycoplasma got itself going.Or perhaps you would care to tell us why you think it wasn't Created by an intelligence that is far superior to ours.Randy

Lyell's book was called: Principles of Geology, It was published in 1830
Not FoundThe other book I referenced that also discusses Buffon is called:
Im Steinkohlenwald = In the Coal-forming Forest,
By Wilhelm Blsche, 1906--Sorry it isn't available online however you can order it from ZVAB - Zentrales Verzeichnis Antiquarischer Bcher | Antiquarische und vergriffene Bcher online bestellenI am also not willing to publish it on my web page, nor to give away my English translation of it at this time.