The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

Hi everyone!I know I said I'm not moderating this thread, but the diminishing quality of discussion over the last couple pages is concerning, so I'd just like to encourage everyone to stick with it. Keep your focus on the topic and not on the misdeeds, supposed or otherwise, of those you're in debate with.We moderators have held a very light rein of late and allowed some threads to become more wild than is usually the case here, but truth be told, most participants have handled this difficult discussion environment with tact and aplomb and so we've kept our distance.We could hand out more suspensions, but this brings objections from both sides that are not without legitimacy. As long as discipline and decorum is only a minor casualty I'd like to continue maintaining a light moderation hand.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Next question: Are you THE main administrator?

I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer to my post #6 concerning mtDNA from before and after the date of the supposed global flood (about 4,350 years ago).I think you said you would agree with the mtDNA analysis but that you contested the dating--but you have offered no details of why the radiocarbon dates should be in error.All you brought to the table was the vague and unsubstantiated claim that sometimes different labs come up with different dates for the same specimen. But you provided no details or citations, nor did you provide any reason to believe that this type of error occurred in the case of On Your Knees Cave or the second example, which is my own work.(You are probably not aware of this, but it is a common practice for both archaeologists and dating professionals to send pieces of the same specimen to two or more different labs to see how closely they agree, or as a test of the inter-comparability of different types of equipment.)So until you can come up (on a different thread) with some concrete details of why radiocarbon dating is not valid you have failed to make your case for a global flood.By the way: the commonly accepted date of the flood among biblical scholars is about 4,350 years ago, so forget fossils and dinosaurs and geology and all the rest. At 4,350 years ago you're dealing with just plain dirt.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

And if he lets you get away with that I am going to kick his butt along with yours. Got me?Edited by Calypsis4, : No reason given.

I notice that you have copy-and-pasted a mishmash of random creationist crap. Let's take a look at it. Here we see creationists making stuff up, as usual.Hilariously, his "reference" for this made-up "fact" is to a video on a creationist website aimed at children!We do of course sometimes see cases where bodies have been deposited in the same orientation. Consider, for example, the image top right below. [thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/0004.jpg[/thumb=300]Note that this was caused by a real event and not a magic flood. [qs]Another very startling finding that demonstrates the sudden/catastrophic burial of very large creatures is a 1971 finding in Southern Mongolia of a perfectly articulated Protoceratops and a Velociraptor frozen in a life and death struggle with each other. Obviously these two creatures were buried suddenly by a huge catastrophe of magnificent proportions.[/qs]A fine example of a creationist substituting the word "obviously" for the production of evidence. What is "obvious" is that they were killed by a catastrophe big enough to bury two dinosaurs. [qs]Quote:Explanation 1
A collapsing sand dune.3
Problem: Sand dunes do not contain the water needed to replace the minerals in bones for fossilization on such a large scale.
Remember, the many other specimens found in the Gobi Desert were also covered by sandy sediment. Were they all from sand dunes, too?
Besides, we haven’t seen any conclusive evidence that this is a viable explanation.[/qs]Wow, what a mess of nonsense this is.The fact that things do get buried in sand show that it is a viable explanation.The fact that lots of other things were buried in sand too does not seem to present any problem. There's a lot of sand in the Gobi Desert.As for the claim of insufficient water for mineralization, let us grant that the specimens <i>are</i> mineralized (he produces no evidence), let us grant that much water would have been required for mineralization, let us grant that the Gobi Desert is very dry, and let us grant hhim (he supplies no evidence) his unspoken conjecture that the climate of the Gobi desert has always been exactly the same since the dinosaurs were buried.Very well. Now consider that the annual rainfall in the Gobi Desert is approximately 200 millimeters, and that the dinosaurs are dated to 80 million years ago. This gives enough time for <i>sixteen thousand kilometers</i> of rain to fall on the Gobi Desert, a quantity of water that makes your imaginary magic flood look like a damp trickle. [qs]The Wollemi Pine of Australia. Said by evolutionists to have been extinct.[/qs]Another of those "living fossils" that Darwin was so keen to find, brought to light by evolutionists when everyone (including all those dumbass creationists, of course) thought that it was extinct. Hooray!Why do creationists never discover anything interesting like that? It seems that all <i>they</i> ever do is sit around waiting for evolutionists to spoon-feed them facts, and then whine because they don't like the facts.<!--AB--><span class="szs f-link"><i>Edited by Dr Adequate, <script>if (getCookie('UseUserTimeZone')) {printDateTime(1255397399000, 'US', '-', 4, 'AMPM');} else {document.write('10/12/09 9:29 PM');}</script>: No reason given.</i></span><!--AE-->

Interesting form of argument,

Oh, I've been to a great many creationist sites over the years. When I research particular creationist claims, I find it essential to read what the creationists themselves say in making that claim as well as to learn what sources they cite. It's very important to read what creationists' own sources actually said; many times, half the disproof of the creationist claim has been in how they had lied about their source. I have also been to the ICR site many times to research their Impact articles. I even subscribed to their Acts & Facts for years, until Gish suddenly and summarily cancelled my subscription because I had caught him in a lie about moon dust.Citing one's sources and providing references to them is one of the most basic principles of scholarship and it is a very important one, which is what makes your own persistent and willful unprofessional conduct so egregious. National Geographic has 110 years of magazine content. Converting that to web content would be a monumental task. Do you have any idea when that photo was published? I seem to remember having seen it reproduced in creationist works nearly two decades ago, simply noted as being a National Geographic photo. How far back does the National Geographic's content archive go? Two decades?In comparison, Answers in Genesis maintains an on-line archive of their articles, but those seem to only go back six years. Sadly, when I went back to retrieve a November 2002 article from their site, their archive no longer went that far back; they were actually removing their older content.Makes me wonder. Thank you for that link. And it just proves what I said. It says that the photo is from National Geographic and throws their claims out there again and no references to their sources! And that's what I've found over and over again in creationist books, on their sites, and in their forum posts. Pictures and bare assertions and zero source references.If there's ever going to be any serious investigation into this claim, we will need some sources. Which is undoubtedly why creationists avoid citing any.Though a leitmotif that I keep seeing is "rapid depositation" and then they make a ridiculous leap to "global flood". It appears that they think that evidence of rapid sediment depositation is supposed to create some kind of problems for geology. Of course it presents to problem for geologists. In the present, we frequently see evidence of rapid depositation by local flooding, so what's up with creationists claiming that evidence of local flooding is proof of a global flood?

It isn't really relevant to moderation because we're all equals, but I do also write the code, maintain the server, and pay the bills.--Percy

Are you saying that its clear to you that the above formation was laid down by one flood?Do you arrive at that conclusion from your observation of the formation or is it that you must believe that because of your faith in the Bible?If you arrive at that conclusion from your observation of the formation, what about it makes it clear that it was from a flood?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change picture to thumbnail.

I see you've chosen to increase the a-hole coefficient rather than decrease it. Pity.I'm looking forward to seeing how you're going to kick my butt over an Internet connection.ETA: I am also interested why you care whether a user named Admin with the title of Director is The Admin. He is an admin. FYI he is The Admin. He posts as Admin when he's speaking ex cathedra and as Percy when he's speaking as a user.Bet this post gets hidden ... :-)Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Why in the world would geologists lie? What an absurd thing to say.About the only thing you can get more than two geos to agree upon at any one time is whether beer is a food group. The very idea that geologists from all over the globe, and amongst all the myriad of disciplines, would come together and form a consensus to LIE to the entire global population about a bunch of rocks that no one BUT geologists give a hoot about, is absolutely comical. The sheer magnitude of the logistics involved in such a conspiracy is mind boggling. No. That is simply impossible and a stupidly moronic assertion to make. Geologists have better things to do with their time than to go about organizing conspiracies to fool the loony creationists. Do you have a problem with that statement? Well of course that's what we mean. It's only the creationists who have changed the criteria to suit their agenda. Geologists understand the nature of geologic processes and the inherent limitations. Creationists, on the other hand, demand the impossible and then rail at the obvious results. Well, gee, if accurate, this brainiac just described what geologists do in a typical day in the field: 1) collect samples for petrographic and paleontologic study; 2) construct a stratigraphic (i.e., geologic) column by mapping the stratigraphy from various locations and comparing them to each other to see which horizons are absent or present from each location (because deposition and erosion contemporaneous processes and we're trying to develop a picture of the paleoenvironment); and 3) assigning relative ages to rocks based on their stratigraphic position and any available age dates (usually on bentonite seams).The image below illustrates how geologists gather stratigraphic data from various locations and compare them to each other in order to get a better idea of how depositional environments changed across the paleo landscape. Notice units change in thickness depending on where on the landscape it was located. Many smaller beds/horizons to not even make it across to other sections because they were localized events. This perfectly illustrates why there is no such thing as a *complete* geologic column as the Creationists demand. . Since I'll be getting a little out of my league below, I welcome any technical corrections or amendments.
. With a little bit of research, I was able to find that, low and behold, CreationWiki was wrong. While a large portion of the Upper Paleozoic rocks are missing from the Ghadames Basin due to the Hercynian Unconformity (erosional event), Permian rocks are not entirely absent from the basin after all, they can be found in the eastern part of the basin.Per T.R. Klett page 11 (U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2202-C: Total Petroleum Systems of the Trias/Ghadames Province, Algeria, Tunisia, and LibyaThe Tanezzuft-Oued Mya, Tanezzuft-Melrhir, and Tanezzuft-Ghadames):

quote:

---

"Permian rocks are only present in the eastern portion of the province. These rocks include Lower Permian pelagic limestone and mudstone, and Upper Permian bioherms, carbonate, and clastic rocks (Rigo, 1995). The Upper Permian Bir Jaja mudstone serves as a seal where present (Boote and others, 1998). Due to the limited extent, Permian stratigraphy is not shown in figure 5.

---

As for the third paragraph, it's nothing but ignorant Creationist drivel referencing a cross-section the author does not even bother to include.. . I could not find enough information online to determine where this basin is precisely located. It appears based on the image above that it could be either the Pelagian Basin in northern Tunisia or the northwestern portion of the Ghadames Basin. A USGS Bulletin does discuss the area and from what I gather, there was insufficient data and therefore a complete discussion of the area was not possible at that time. It appeared to me that the reason stratigraphy appears to be absent is because the author only discusses the petroleum system itself (Permian to Cretaceous rocks) and not any superfluous units.. . Again, there is not enough information online to determine whether this basin contains all the necessary divisions. My limited research shows that the petroleum systems are present in Mesozoic rocks and therefore all the literature I was able to find only discusses that sequence of rocks. This in no way indicates that the Paleozoic, remainder of the Mesozoic, or Cenozoic sequences are missing. All it indicates is that the CreatoWiki author has not bothered to conduct the appropriate amount of research required to refute this claim. This could be accomplished by spending time in the right university library. The author appears to be relying on the fact that much petroleum-based research is inaccessible to the lay public.. . Again, there is not enough information online to determine whether this basin contains all the necessary divisions. Research shows that the petroleum systems are present in late Mesozoic-Cretaceous rocks and therefore all the literature I was able to find only discusses those sequences of rocks. Same as before, this in no way indicates that the rest of the stratigraphic sequences are missing.. . Apparently this column is complete, except that the CreatoWiki author here has concluded that he is better qualified than professional geologists in determining what actually constitutes a complete geologic column. The fact of the matter is that ALL geologic columns contain numerous gaps, many of which are unrecognizable to scientists. In addition, it is also the nature of sedimentary rocks to be intercalated with underlying and overlying sediments, particularly those deposited by water.Imagine the sea level rising and falling over time. A rising sea level deposits marine sediments on the beach. A falling sea level means that beach is subjected to the elements and deposition by fluvial processes. A fluvial system also shows much intercalation between various sediment types because a river moves across the landscape. The river will deposit its own sediment, but when it moves across the land, that sediment is exposed to the elements where it can be eroded or buried by alluvial gravels, volcanic rocks/ash, etc. This intercalation in no way indicates rapid burial, but natural surficial and marine processes that can include slow (limestone) and rapid (river flooding) deposition.See image below for an example of what we would find in such a system. This is the nature of geologic processes and anyone who studies geology expects this as the absolute norm. It is painfully apparent that this author knows nothing about geology and if he/she does, they are intentionally misleading their audience.. . Basically, their argument against this location being a complete column consists of its not being *thick* enough and what some atlas from states back in 1964 — a source more than 40 years out of date. How very typical. Much research has been conducted on the Williston Basin, much of it biostratigraphic. Here is a link to the USGS Publications Warehouse where some research is available online: USGS - Williston Basin research. In addition, Google Williston palynostratigraphy and anyone can see just how much biostratigraphic work is and has been conducted on the Williston Basin since 1964.As for the section not being *thick enough*, where did that number come from? I've not heard of any such thing and I can hardly conceive of how something like that could ever be determined. What sort of mind numbing medication does someone have to be on to come up with this twisted bit of non-logic??? The geologic column comes to us as a result of hundreds of years of studying rocks. There is no assuming anything. . It was constructed using (but not limited to) fossils, lithologic markers, and comparing local sections to others in the area, across countries, and then across continents. No, it is not *complete* in the sense that every single geologic process, sediment, intrusion, that happened over the last 4.6 billion years is present. The geologic column is simply a way for scientists to make sense of the complex geologic history of the earth. Not too much different than breaking the day up into 24 hours. Except we’ve broken up the age of the earth based on lithostratigraphy, geologic events, and fossils. Without knowing what this person is referring to, I can’t comment. But resulting from a multitude of geologic processes (e.g., faulting, folding), this is not a problem for geologists. Again, who came up with that theoretical thickness? I’ve never been lied to because I was taught to understand the nature of geologic processes. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a complete geologic column in the sense that you Creationists demand. That *complete* column does not exist and has never been purported to exist by any geologist. It exists only in the agenda-driven fantasies of cranks in the business of promoting Creationism.I think you need to go back to your sources and lay a skeptical eye to it all. You've not been right yet.

Keep up the good work, Calypsis4. I collected this 'fossil' from Randle Cliff in the Calvert formation, Calvert County, Maryland, last Friday. No evolutionist is going to convince me it's 15 to 18 myo.

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.

Undoubtedly a contribution that will last for ages.

That was your entire post?One has to wonder what you were talking about. You know, because you've been disgraced and humiliated and proved wrong about every subject you've lied about.I mean, you could at least tell a few lies, and at least pretend that there was one thing ... anything ... even a halfwitted lie, as usual ... that supported your froth of lies.No? You've got nothing?Then that is a fact that maybe you should think about.You can't even think of a lie that would support your lies.This may be the point at which you should think about not lying.

You wasted a post. So you'll take a break for half a day.