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

Here is One Portion of the Book that I translated Betweem pages 15-17.Barely one human life separated Scheuchzer from Buffon at the height of their influence. How differently things already stood, however, when Buffon published his timely work of the Epochs of Nature.To the contemporaries of that time, like Goethe, who understood it, this book was like a new Bible. In reality, it meant the first radical break of geology with the dogma of the absolute truth of the biblical account of creation; it provided a characteristic new creation story, in fact a natural one, constructed (built) with the complete knowledge of that day in a framework of brilliant imagination. After his first remarks about these things, the theological faculty of Paris had the young Buffon reprimanded and forced a revocation similar to what was done to Galileo. Afterwards however, on the eve of the great revolution, its genesis re-ignited and they could no longer stop it, while the writings of Rousseau and Voltaire revolutionized other intellectual areas, and Buffon became a world-famous man.Top of P. 16
This book did not merely look at the primeval world in the short time span before the flood, but rather saw in it a quite larger picture, where universal devolopment saw one epoch after another replace that which came before it, and where the origin of the coal from primeval vegetation is already presupposed as an established fact and is described with the clearest (of) words.The earth has cooled off. The water was spread out over its surface and then locally withdrew. Enormous periods of time have already passed; -- not exactly the (same) millions of years of our geology today, but enough milleniums in order to leave the Bible believers far behind. Still, a universal heat prevails over land and sea. In it the oldest life now arises -- partly in species that no longer exist. Mussels and ammonites populate the ocean, whereas on the hotter land, an immense growth of plant life takes place. To which we owe the coal.It owes continues Buffon (and it is worth digging out (into) this lost place itself again like an old spirit), its origin to the first plants which were formed upon (by) the earth; all the land that was first elevated above the water witnessed the beginning of an immense abundance of herbs and trees of each sex; fallen due to (old) age, they were washed out by the waters and formed endless (infinite) store houses of vegetable material.The sea impregnated the woods with bituminous substances which themselves were already a decomposition product of the plant bodies (matter). After drifting and being tossed around these plant masses subsequently settled onto fresh clay strata. In time it was again covered by clay; in this way such coal formation, and clay covering, repeated this same scenario (in the same place) several times, again and again, so that plant deposits and clay deposits alternate with one another (layer upon layer).
P. 17 (same paragraph). No doubt difficult to understand thought Buffon where this enormous mass of vegetation remains could have came from, and how they became so considerably thick and widespread, presumably extending over vast (almost endless) places of the earth. However if one thinks of the still more endless masses of plant growth, which must have taken twenty or twenty five thousand years to produce, and considers that the human being was not around yet to burn down forests, one will understand how enormous layers had to form only from plant deposits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------Note also that Buffon didn't believe that the Coal grew where is was buried, but rather that is was laid down as a sedimentary deposit.

Here is a section of pp. 23-24 of Bolsche's Book: Translated into English.One saw that for all those frightful catastrophe traditions, no clue whatsoever (from the excessive quantities) was present, probably (perhaps) because of a steady (continually) prevailing of the same slow natural processes like we see today. The transformations (changes) had likely taken place without exception quite slowly over long periods of time. P. 24 (SP). Continents had not suddenly subsided (sunk), mountains had not sprung up in a few days. If a country’s mountains had vanished in the course of geological periods, and water had taken their place, like gradual weathering that eroded its rock over eons of time, as it does today, a coast was step by step crumbled into the sea like today’s (rocky) cliffs of Helgoland, incredibly slow raisings and lowerings (subsidence), over thousands of centuries, folded the earth’s crust and arched it up without any sheer break in the alpine chain.However, as is the habit with well-founded facts: nevertheless, the coal-theory also, finally, and patiently fit into this picture.Now from Lyell’s school the major emphasis was put on the often, regular occurrence of coal seams with clay strata, which Buffon already described so well. It was put out (played out) against each sudden catastrophic ending.Within the period itself, the type of deposit apparently changed a number of times in the same spot, and so on, a sign of diverse change that took place (ran its course), however, in regular sequence through the entire period, instead of heaping itself (up) merely at its end, and that apparently had never completely destroyed life because higher up again and again lay seams of coal, thus forest remains, pure mud sediments, and so forth. The (time) duration of such period lengthened this new school of thought (theory) even more (further) by an enourmous amount than Cuvier himself ever ventured (dared). To bring out everything so beautiful now simply required (that) each period occur slowly over millions of years. And this lengthening of time measure has in fact gone on and on since then also with the most prudent researchers.

Paul asked: Please give the volume and chapter number where Lyell discusses coal and the age of the Earth.Randy: I do NOT have a copy of Lyell's book, but you are free to purchase it yourself if you don't believe me, or if you want to check out what he says. However, according to Bolsche, coal formation played a major part in How Lyell was able to extend the Accepted age of the earth. See my last post.

Paul said: "But lets emphasise the major point. Neither quote states that the formation of coal was very important to estimates of the age of the Earth. The emphasis on coal seems to have more to do with the subject of the book, rather than its importance to geological thought (which is not explicitly stated in either quote)."Response: Go back and read it again."Now from Lyell’s school the major emphasis was put on the often, regular occurrence of coal seams with clay strata... It was... (played out) against each sudden catastrophic ending.""Within the period itself, the type of deposit apparently changed a number of times in the same spot, and so on," (i.e. the coal "forest" was buried under sedimentary rocks) "a sign of diverse change that ...(ran its course), however, in regular sequence through the entire period, instead of heaping itself (up) merely at its end, and that apparently had never completely destroyed life because higher up again and again lay seams of coal, thus forest remains, pure mud sediments, and so forth. The (time) duration of such period" (i.e. the growth in situ theory that Lyell was espousing) "lengthened this new school of thought" (about the age of the earth) "(theory) even more (further) by an enourmous amount than Cuvier himself ever ventured (dared). To bring out everything so beautiful now simply required (that) each period occur slowly over millions of years. And this lengthening of time measure has in fact gone on and on since then..."However, now the whole issue of "millions of years" is being looked at more closely, and I believe it is based more on the wishful imaginings of die-hard evolutionists than on empirical science. You can believe it if you want to, but the evidence is definitely overwhelmingly clear that the earth is even a "million" years old, much less "billions."

I just made a mistake. I said that:"You can believe it if you want to, but the evidence is definitely overwhelmingly clear that the earth is even a "million" years old, much less "billions."I forgot to insert the word "NOT" between "definitely" and "overwhelmingly" -- Hope that didn't cause any of you to freak out.Randy

Jon suggested that I: "Perhaps...present this overhwhelming evidence for a young Earth?Sure:
Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones, Organic Collagen, and protein fragments -- including Heme (along with little Red round things that looked Just like red blood cells that were found inside of a Dinosaur Bone).Descriptions of two different Very Dinosaur-like creatures in the Old Testament Book of Job.The Year of the Dragon, from the Chinese.Legends of Dinosaur / Dragons from just about every nation on earth.The remarkable similarity of such dragons with what we now know about dinosaurs.The fact that, according to "Legend" there were Swimming, Walking, and Flying dragons vs our current knowledge that there were at one time (in the not too distant past) similar Swimming, Walking and Flying dinosaurs.Carbon Dating of Dinosaur Bones and unfossilized wood from supposedly very "Old" (i.e. "mythions of years") strata.Niagara Falls,The Non-existence of Dark MatterThe fact that Metamorphosis could not have evolved, but rather had to have been programmed into the DNA of every creature that undergoes such (spontaneous) total transformation.The presence of organic ligaments on (supposedly) 165 "million year old" Ammonites.Supposedly 45-60 million year old (totally) unfossilized Logs, and pine cones, and pine needles and leaf-litter found on Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands.The fact that Frozen mammoths display no more proteins, or DNA fragments than do unfossilized dinosaur bones.Organic woody matter present in (supposedly) 300 m.y.o. fossilized trees from Nova Scotia.The San Andreas FaultThe fact that no fossil trees on earth were older than about 1600 years -- as displayed by their tree rings.The fact that the Oldest trees on earth are only about 5,000 years old (max) and still getting older.Gotta Go now.Cheers,
Randy

Ned Said: Is the coal question settled one way or the other?It doesn't appear to me that it is.Response: Some would like you to think that it is, but others, such as myself, dispute this, and believe that the Peat-Bog / in situ growth theory is incorrect.Also, in this regard, I just "stumbled upon" a few more facts: which I will quote below.A note about underclays, in general: George M. Price, in his book "The New Geology" quotes Arber as follows, with regard to underclays:"Professor E. A. N. Arber, of Cambridge University, has given us some very enlightening remarks about the 'underclays.' He says that 'nothing could be more unlike a soil, in the usual sense of the term, than an underclay.' ("Natural History of Coal," p. 95) He further points out: 'Not only are fire clays commonly found without any coal seams above them, but they may occur as the roof above the seam, or in the seam itself... Sometimes coals occur without any underclay, and rest directly on sandstones, limestones, conglomerates, or even on igneous rocks.' -- P. 98. 'Another difficulty in connection with the underclays is that their thickness commonly bears no relation to the extent of the seam above. Often thick coals overlie thin underclays, and vice versa.'""Regarding the many instances of upright stems, this author argues that --'These stems in some instances are certainly not in situ. Examples have been found which are upside down, and in some districts the prone stems far exceed those still upright. No doubt the majority, if not all of these trunks have been drifted.' -- P. 114." (Price, p. 464)----------------------------------------------------------------------
I also found a Link referring to an article that I ref. in Part II of my Paper with regard to Marine influences present during coal formation, and the aquatic nature of Sigillaria (primarily due to the spiral nature of their rootlets -- which are only seen among aquatic plant today). Anyway here is the Link -- along with what it says:At http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/2mlcd10.txt
We find the following quote from a Book titled: More Letters of Charles Darwin Vol. 2LETTER 555. TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, May 22nd, 1860."Lyell tells me that Binney has published in Proceedings of Manchester
Society a paper trying to show that Coal plants must have grown in very marine marshes. (555/1. "On the Origin of Coal," by E.W. Binney, "Mem. Lit. Phil. Soc. Manchester," Volume VIII., 1848, page 148. Binney examines the evidence on which dry land has been inferred to exist during the formation of the Coal Measures, and comes to the conclusion that the land was covered by water, confirming Brongniart's opinion that Sigillaria was an aquatic plant. He believes the Sigillaria 'grew in water, on the deposits where it is now discovered, and that it is the plant which in a great measure contributed to the formation of our valuable beds of coal.'
(Loc. cit., page 193.)) Do you remember how savage you were long years ago at my broaching such a conjecture?"Randy

John said: This is possibly evidence about how recently dinosaurs lived, not the age of the Earth. Sorry, what you claim is just not so. What was found was very probably (not certainly) degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that may represent altered blood remnants. The bone was incompletely fossilized and, while it is certainly unusual that such compounds should have survived for millions of years, it's not impossible. See Claim CC371.Randy: These "degraded hemoglobin fragments" produces immune responses in rats. The bones also contained collagen, and in my opinion are (almost certainly) NOT "mythions of years" old, but rather only a few thousand -- just like the Mammoth bones found today in the actic regions.Descriptions of two different Very Dinosaur-like creatures in the Old Testament Book of Job.The Year of the Dragon, from the Chinese.Legends of Dinosaur / Dragons from just about every nation on earth.Jon: "Any connection from the Biblical account and the legends you mention to dinosaurs is very tenuous at best (very few scholars think that the beasts from Job were dinosaurs or anything similar)"Randy: Frankly I don't care what a scholar cares, unless either I trust his judgment, believe he is unbiased, and is not trying to promote the unscientific theory of evolution.But these descriptions, by the way, do not fit those of any known creatures that are living today. For example, Behemoth was almost certainly some type of Apatasaurus (formerly Brontasaurus) since he had Bones like Bronze, lived among the swamps and river banks, and could swing his tail "like a Cedar" tree. Have you ever seen a Cedar Tree? They are, by the way, VERY LARGE trees.Jon:"... and is again irrelevant to the age of the Earth. At best it's about how recently dinosaurs lived."Which: "at best" completely demolishes the Geological Time Fable -- along with its "mythions of years."The remarkable similarity of such dragons with what we now know about dinosaurs.You're kidding, right? Common features of dragon legends are breathing fire, and of large animals flying on ridiculously tiny wings. Do you think that dinosaurs breathed fire, or that any of the flying dinosaurs looked anything like the descriptions and depictions of dragon legends? (and, to be pedantic, most of what people think of as flying dinosaurs [such as pterodactyls and pteranadons] were not dinosuars, they were reptiles).Reponse: My reasons for accepting the "Fire-breating" Dragon scenario are as follows:1. We are told in Job, that Leviathan could make the deeps to boil -- meaning that he could exhale fire.2. According to MANY legends of Dragons, Some of them could exhale fire.3. Many Dinosaurs and Teradactyls had large Crests on their heads.4. Such large crest contained multiple air chambers -- or which we can only speculate as to what they were used for.5. And last but not least, Little Bombie: the Bombardier Beetle -- who can shoot hot (pulsating) gasses (at 212 deg. F) out of his little rear end, and even direct which way it goes. All without blowing himself up -- via the controlled use of chemical reactions.The fact that, according to "Legend" there were Swimming, Walking, and Flying dragons vs our current knowledge that there were at one time (in the not too distant past) similar Swimming, Walking and Flying dinosaurs.Jon: (Oh, and there were no swimming dinosaurs. Aquatic reptiles, all of 'em.)OK: Swimming reptiles that were very large.Carbon Dating of Dinosaur Bones ...You're really into dinosaurs, aren't you? I thought we were supposed to be talking about the age of the Earth?Randy: If the Geological Time Fable collapses, as I believe is will, so do the Mythions of years (of evolution) with it.Niagara FallsJon: Not evidence for a young Earth. All we can say is that the Earth is older than Niagara Falls. It says nothing about a maximum age for the Earth.Randy: What it tells us is that our own (North American) Continent is very likely less than 10,000 years old (max).The Non-existence of Dark MatterIrrelevant to the age of the Earth, and an unsubstantiated claim to boot.Randy: Quite relevant and quite "substantiated." Here is a link for those who wish to see for themselves.What Happened to all the Dark Matter? – Earth Age
See also: Is The Big Bang Real? – Earth AgeThe fact that Metamorphosis could not have evolved, but rather had to have been programmed into the DNA of every creature that undergoes such (spontaneous) total transformation.Irrelevant to the age of the Earth...Quite Relevant, and it also means that there VERY LIKELY never were Mythions of years of evolution, but rather simply a LOT of programming and organizing by the Creator going on during those first few days of Creation.The presence of organic ligaments on (supposedly) 165 "million year old" Ammonites.This has been rumored, and ...And quite well documented as well.
Here is the Link for all those who want to know more (or check this out for themselves). A 165 Million Year Surprise | Answers in Genesis Supposedly 45-60 million year old (totally) unfossilized Logs, and pine cones, and pine needles and leaf-litter found on Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands.There are indeed some remarkably preserved items there. Irrelevant to the age of the Earth.If you say so, but lets not forget the link for those who might care to question it. Page not found | Earth and Environmental SciencesWhere we are told:
"The Axel Heiberg fossils are largely preserved as mummifications. Although usually compressed, the wood and other remains are relatively unaltered chemically and biologically (Obst et al. 1991). Preservation of the fossils is exquisite, including leaf litter, cones, twigs, branches, boles, roots etc.
Where these are not compressed, they are virtually indistinguishable from equivalent tissues found in the forest floor of modern conifer forests... The reasons why preservation is exceptional and there is so little mineralization remain obscure. Analysis of the organic remains indicate that they were buried in a fresh-water environment (Goodarzi et al. 1991)."See also: http://www.geocities.com/eureka2000_ca/forest.html
Page not found | Geophysical Institute
http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/.../articles/colville.html
Page not found | Earth and Environmental SciencesThe fact that Frozen mammoths display no more proteins, or DNA fragments than do unfossilized dinosaur bones.Huh? Frozen mammoths retain most of their protein...That is so fragmented that it can't be used for cloning.Organic woody matter present in (supposedly) 300 m.y.o. fossilized trees from Nova Scotia.You're not referring to Joggins, are you?Sure am: Here is the Info:In addition to the above, Scott et al. report that the organic cell walls of some trees are still intact. 89 Dawson also reported finding similar organic material in fossil trees at Wallace Harbor. 90 With regard to this Dawson noted that after the calcareous mineral matter (filling the pores) was dissolved with hydrochloric acid, what was left was a piece of wood retaining the same size and shape as the original--only now it could be bent or burned in a fire just like ordinary wood.See Page not found – Earth Age for refs.Jon: Still not evidence for a young Earth.Randy: If you say so.The San Andreas FaultAs for Niagara Falls above, all this proves is that the Earth is older than the San Andreas Fault. It says nothing about a maximum age for the Earth.Here's the Link:
Is the Continental Drift Theory Real? – Earth Age:The fact that no fossil trees on earth were older than about 1600 years -- as displayed by their tree rings.Jon:So what? Even assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, that says nothing about how old the trees themselves are; why couldn't a 100,000,000 year old tree have lived for only 1,600 years?Randy: Good point. All it suggests is that the Biblical Time line -- of about 1600 years from the time of Creation until the Time of the Flood -- is probably correct.

Edge: Randy, do you realize that not all dry land is 'dry'? Or that it may not always be wet?Randy: The significance of Sigillaria trees being able to intertwine their (mostly hollow) roots and (perhaps) float upon the water's surface, is that they may have formed extremely LARGE forests that literally floated on top of (much of) the worlds (pre-flood) Oceans. I realize that this is (at least somewhat) speculatory since we don't have any living specimens to examine, nor do we know how salty the pre-flood oceans were, etc. However, the very shape of their Stigmaria rootlets suggests that they were aquatic.Randy

Jon with regard to Collagen in Dinosaur bones: "That has not been confirmed."Randy: I am just going by the news stories and what the scientists have themselves reported.Jon: But, even if it's there, the conditions under which the bone was preserved are so unusual that fragments of collagen could have survived for millions of years.Randy: Actually these bones were found in porous rock (i.e. Sandstone) so that, coupled with the fact that bone itself is porous, suggests quite strongly (in my opinion) that such would be "unusual" -- unless of course, they are NOT mythions of years old, but rather only a few thousand.Jon: So, the first item of overwhelming evidence is your opinion.Randy: opinion based on sound principles of science, as opposed to the wild and fantasy ridden speculations of so called "Scientists" who are to this day, propagating gross distortions and lies to the American public with regard to the unscientific hypothesis of the spontaneous generation of life apart from a Creator.That's all I have time for at the moment.Randy

Jon said: Re: This just in ...
Yahoo Search - Web SearchScroll down to the "Newly Found Dinosaur Tissue Raises Hope of Extracting DNA" item.Randy: Like I said: The Dinosaurs are NO OLDER than the Mammoths and Mammoth bones buried in the tundra soil and in Ice.Message 182 of 184
03-24-2005 08:45 PM Reply to: Message 180 by RandyB
03-24-2005 08:10 PM IP Logged
Re: Old earth based on Coal - referenceWith regard to Collagen, Randy said:
"I am just going by the news stories and what the scientists have themselves reported"Jon: Going by the news stories is a bad idea. Bet you haven't read what the scientists themselves wrote.Randy: I have read some of the technical articles, and newspaper articles, and I also have several more (very technical papers on this) that I have not read yet -- because I am still studying Fossil trees.Jon: As quoted at Dino-blood and the Young Earth, what the scientists themselves wrote isquote:While some of the biomolecules are most likely contaminants, the probable presence of collagen type I suggests that some molecules of dinosaurian origin remain in these tissues.{emphasis added - JonF}Randy: At least one of the articles I recall said that they had DEFINITELY isolated Collagen molecules.Jon: ... But there probably are traces of dinosaur collagen there. You have yet to establish that it is unreasonable to expect that such things should occasionally happen in mainstream science timelines. Your opinion doesn't count (given that you have no demonstrated and relevant expertise); facts, evidence, and analysis do.Randy: Integrity is, in my opinion, a LOT more important than "so called" expertise. And until the "scientific" community comes clean and admits that they have LIED to the public with regard to the scientifically impossible "odds" of a self-replicating cell organizing itself, they have ZERO credibility. In other words: A degree is only as good as the person using it. And it is a FACT that almost all scientists are BIASED when it comes to their opinions regarding the (subjective) FACTS and what they really mean.Randy

Randy: Like I said: The Dinosaurs are NO OLDER than the Mammoths and Mammoth bones buried in the tundra soil and in Ice.Jon: Yes, you said, and your only support is your opinion... you asserted "just like the Mammoth bones found today in the actic regions".Jon: Evidence is what you are supposed to be supplying here, remember? Overwhelming evidecne is what you offered,Randy: Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones have also been found in the Arctic, in about the same condition as Mammoth bones. But as far as "evidence" goes, when someone wants to believe something very badly, they tend to shut out any and all evidence that is contrary to what they believe -- even if it is BOLDLY staring them right in the face.Anyway: Here is a Link with more info on those Unfossilized Dino bones.
Page not found – Earth AgeBelow is some more info and Refs regarding this.
At:
www.earthage.org/youngearthev/...
{Shortened display form of URL. - Adminnemooseus}
we find: A 1987 article in the Journal of Paleontology begins as follows: "Hadrosaur bones have been found on the Colville River north of Umiat on the North Slope of Alaska." 51 What is perhaps most interesting about these "many thousands of bones" is that they "lack any significant degree of permineralization."52,53 In fact, the people who discovered them didn't report it for 20 years because they thought they were bison bones. Because these bones were partially exposed in a "soft, brown, sandy silt,54 and because every year the snow melts, this means that every year these bones are subject to the elements for two to three months. These bones represent another significant blow to the evolutionary-based dating of dinosaurs.
51. Davies, Kyle L., "Duck-Bill Dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae, Ornithischia) From The North Slope Of Alaska," Journal Of Paleontology, Vol. 61, No. 1, Jan. 1987, pp. 198-200.
52. Ibid. 51, p. 198; and ibid. 36-A, pp. 11-12.
53. Ibid. 50 p. 29.
54. Ibid. 51 p. 198.Sorry no more time.RandyThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-27-2005 02:32 PM