Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 236 of 320 (633049)
09-12-2011 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Granny Magda
09-12-2011 8:05 AM


Re: Polystrate fossils
Thanks Granny Magda, I missed this.
Just being me writes:
Yet the examples of thousands of polystrate tree and animal fossils I am referring to are found as well preserved at the top portions as they are at the bottom.
Jbm, could you provide an example, with references to trees of course, of one of these occurrences?
Edited by Pressie, : Edited a sentence
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Granny Magda, posted 09-12-2011 8:05 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 239 of 320 (633056)
09-12-2011 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Percy
09-12-2011 8:57 AM


Actualism
We call ourselves actualists! (Although I haven't heard the terms "actualists" or "uniformatists" or "gradualists" while I was studying. We only studied those rocks. I only heard those terms later from creationists on the net when discovering that some people still think the world is 6 000 years old).
Edited by Pressie, : Added the last part in brackets
Edited by Pressie, : Added another word
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle from "Re: Polystrate fossils" to "Actualism".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Percy, posted 09-12-2011 8:57 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(5)
Message 250 of 320 (633464)
09-14-2011 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Robert Byers
09-14-2011 1:34 AM


I know, I know, it's useless responding to him, but I'll give it a go.
Robert Byers writes:
The geologist is to discover the truth.
I guess that’s why mining companies employ me provide a model of their deposits. They do go and check if my models reflect reality. it costs them a lot of money. If it doesn’t meet reality, I loose my job.
Robert Byers writes:
Just figuring things out by present processes
Evidence (the rocks themselves) indicate that the same processes we observe today also occurred in the past. It’s amazing what studying evidence can do!
Robert Byers writes:
only works if non present processes are indeed impossible.
You mean things like gravity ceased to exist in the past for a while? Magic?
Robert Byers writes:
Other processes can and would exist in special conditions.
Gravity doesn’t cease to exist, even under very special conditions. Are you referring to magic?
Robert Byers writes:
Only if its impossible for special conditions to produce these results can there be confidence in the conclusions from ordinary observed processes.
Magic can produce anything. It isn’t science. Don’t even pretend that it is science.
Robert Byers writes:
Since its all about layers then its all about layers being laid.
Huh? I don’t really understand, but not all geology is about layers. In fact, a lot of geology is about batoliths and dykes and sills and metamorphyses and pypes, etc.
Robert Byers writes:
Increase the layering mechanism..
It is well understood how "layering mechanisms" could be increased. Lots of ways. Decreased too. Lots of ways. Are you referring to more water, less water, deeper water, shallower water, faster moving water, slower moving water, more wind, less wind, faster moving wind, slower moving wind, a bigger sea, a smaller sea, a shallower sea, a deeper sea, a faster stream, a slower stream, a shallower stream, a deeper stream, a lagoon, an open sea, turbidite deposits in lakes, turbidite deposits in oceans, delta front deposits, braided river deposits, glacial deposits, etc? Combinations of all of the above? What do you mean exactly? We do know what deposits resulting from each of these processes look like. No magic involved.
Robert Byers writes:
.. and one has a way to account for instant many layered sediment structures.
Instant many layered sediments? Doesn’t make sense. Can you give us an example of this? I mean, we can see sediments currently forming in one instant. You can even do it at home. Fill a bottle with sand and water. Shake. Leave for a few minutes. Voila.
Robert Byers writes:
A line of reasoning.
Sorry, lots of things in your post don’t make any sense at all. Your last sentence, for example, is Greek to me and I don’t speak Greek.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : Spelling baaaad!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Robert Byers, posted 09-14-2011 1:34 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Robert Byers, posted 09-17-2011 3:22 AM Pressie has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 254 of 320 (633500)
09-14-2011 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Taq
09-14-2011 11:08 AM


Taq writes:
Also, you need to account for hundreds of thousands of years worth of diatom growth in a single flood year.
[sarcasm]The flood was different. We had thousands of seasons in that year. Remember anything was possible. That's evidence for the flood![/sarcasm]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Taq, posted 09-14-2011 11:08 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Taq, posted 09-14-2011 3:39 PM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 256 of 320 (633602)
09-15-2011 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Taq
09-14-2011 3:39 PM


[sarcasm] What's even more amazing is that all this happened while the continents were on hydroplates speeding through the ocean faster than the Concorde could fly. Wonderful evidence for the flood. Truly amazing [/sarcasm]
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed structure

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Taq, posted 09-14-2011 3:39 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by saab93f, posted 09-15-2011 1:25 AM Pressie has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 259 of 320 (633763)
09-16-2011 8:22 AM


Now that the thread is open again, could we get some answers from one of the creationists who made very big claims? Could I have an answer from Just being real on
Pressie writes:
Could you please give any real-life example of where fossils that pierce through strata that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart? I simply don’t believe you.
When I say an example, I don’t mean where creationists claim that uniformitarian geologists say this. I mean an example of where a uniformitarian geologist actually says this.
Jbr, you should be able to back up your claim. Without this, your whole argument collapses.
Could I also have an answer from Just being real on this:
Pressie writes:
Just being real, do you think that, for example, the Tournaisian Stage, Mississippi Epoch, Carboniferous Period (shown as one colour and one division in the geologic column), consists of one stratum deposited from around 345 to 359 million years ago at one constant sedimentary rate?
These are important questions, all involving basic claims creationists make.
Why do so many creationists ignore the very basic fundamentals of a subject they pretend to know so much about? They think they know so much that they 'know" that more than 99.99% of all the specialists on that subject are wrong. They should be able to back up their very profound claims with at least one reference. "Uniformatist" geologists can. With thousands of references.
Edited by Pressie, : Added a sentence or teo!
Edited by Pressie, : Erased the last sentence as it is not really applicable

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 09-16-2011 11:23 AM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 271 of 320 (634024)
09-18-2011 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Just being real
09-17-2011 4:36 AM


Just being real writes:
I find this akin to saying, We want you to tell us about the American Independence Day, but you are not allowed to mention the date of July the Fourth Seventeen hundred and Seventy Six. If the "age" of the strata is the evidence, then how can we present "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood" without discussing the age of the strata? Remember, we are not talking about just any global flood, but a geologically RECENT global flood.
Not at all. You have to find empirical evidence for such a flood first. If you can’t present any evidence for the flood, any speculation on the age of something that didn’t happen is just wishful thinking. In this thread, we discuss the evidence for that event. In other words, you have to provide evidence that some strata were deposited by a global flood. So far you’ve not presented anything, apart from straw men about what you claim uniformatist geologists say. Seeing that you can’t even present one little piece of evidence, now you want to discuss age, you might as well discuss the age of the fairies in my garden. We need evidence that such a flood occurred first.
Just being real writes:
So the question is (since your the Man with all the power and his hand poised to pull the plug at any second), are we going to be permitted to discuss potential evidence for a global flood in the "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood" thread, or not?
Evidence. We’re here to discuss evidence. You can’t discuss the age of fairies in this forum. You can discuss evidence for the flood.
It also doesn't help you to ignore questions. Jbr, could you refer us to any "uniformatist" geologist who claimed that different strata around creationist "polystrate" fossils are "millions of years apart"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Just being real, posted 09-17-2011 4:36 AM Just being real has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(4)
Message 272 of 320 (634027)
09-18-2011 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Just being real
09-17-2011 4:37 AM


Just being real writes:
I've never seen a tree start growing in a depth below a couple of feet. And I have never seen them grow through other layers sedementary ROCK. The trees you suggest are an example of doing this, again have not been found growing through even one let alone more than one seem of coal.
Are you serious? Do jou think that those trees grew through layers of ROCK?
Just being real writes:
No I totally get that you are saying the layers were laid down quickly, what I don't get is that they are sepperated by not 50 years, as in your dad's pocket watch analogy, but rather millions of years.
You just keep repeating the same straw man. Nobody has ever said that they are separated by millions of years. Quite a few people have pointed at this, but you just ignore it.
I'll repeat, seeing that you seem to ignore this: No "uniformatist" geologist has ever said that those layers are separated by millions of years. You ignoring it only reflects badly on you.
just being real writes:
And the trees are supposed to have waited around for each "quick" layer to cover more of it up, until it was eventually fully covered and then presevered. That sir, I do not get at all.
Again, they didn’t have to wait millions of years.
We see it happening all over the world today. You were even shown examples of where it is happening today. You ignoring it won’t let the facts go away.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Just being real, posted 09-17-2011 4:37 AM Just being real has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(3)
Message 273 of 320 (634035)
09-18-2011 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Just being real
09-17-2011 4:37 AM


Just being real, I started reading your reference in post 266, Creation Evidence Museum of Texas I came to the third paragraph, which reads:
creationevidence writes:
In The Creation-Evolution Controversy author R.L. Wysong wrote about an unusual polystrate tree, This polystrate tree penetrates a visible distance of ten feet through volcanic sandstone of the Clarno formation in Oregon. Potassium-Argon dating of the nearby John Day formation suggest that 1,000 feet of rock was deposited over a period of about seven million years, or, in other words, at the rate of the thickness of this page annually! However, catastrophic burial must have formed the rock and caused the fossilization, otherwise, the tree would have rotted and collapsed.[2]
I didn’t read further. I can’t believe that people can mislead so openly and you still believe them.
Let’s start. The Clarno formation has all characteristics of being deposited by lahars. You know what that is?
A lahar is a type of mudflow or debris flow composed of a slurry of pyroclastic material, rocky debris, and water. The material flows down from a volcano, typically along a river valley. Your R.L. Wysong should stick to being a veterinarian, he is a clown when he comes to geology. He doesn’t even klnow the very basics of geology. "Volcanic sandstone
The animals and plants couldn’t get away quickly enough from the lahars, they died and were covered quickly by pyroclastic deposits, not sandstones. This is described even in Wiki. There’s a huge difference between pyroclastic material and sandstone.
From: John Day Fossil Beds National Monument - Wikipedia
Wiki writes:
Volcanic eruptions about 44 million years ago during the Eocene deposited lavas accompanied by debris flows (lahars) atop the older rocks in the western part of the province. Containing fragments of shale, siltstone, conglomerates, and breccias, the debris flows entombed plants and animals caught in their paths; the remnants of these ancient flows comprise the rock formations exposed in the Clarno Unit.[36] Preserved in the Clarno Nut Beds are fossils of tropical and subtropical nuts, fruits, roots, branches, and seeds.[37] Large mammals inhabiting this region between 50 and 35 million years ago included browsers such as brontotheres and amynodonts, scavengers like the hyaenodonts, as well as Patriofelis and other predators.[37] Eroded remnants of the Clarno stratovolcanoes, once the size of Mount Hood, are still visible near the monument, for example Black Butte, White Butte, and other buttes near Mitchell.[38]
Also note that the Clarno is not one stratum. It consists of lots of strata.
Then the John Day Formation: http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/...tent/abstract/12/4/229
geoscienceworld writes:
The John Day Formation in Oregon consists largely of silicic to intermediate pyroclastic material ranging in age from about 19 to 37 m.y. Stratigraphic and lithologic variations within the formation indicate that the bulk of this material was derived from vents west of the 121st meridian, in or near the present-day Cascade Range. Voluminous dacitic to andesite air-fall material was probably derived from volcanoes within the western Cascade Range, whereas rhyolitie ash-flow tuffs and lava flows were erupted from vents farther east. Sparse alkali basalt and trachyandesite flows, compositionally distinct from Cascade Range lavas, were erupted from local vents within the John Day outcrop area. Initiation of John Day volcanism about 37 m.y. ago signified a shift in the locus of calc-alkaline volcanic activity from the Blue Mountains to the Cascade Range and marked the emergence of the Cascade Range as a major volcanic feature.
This formation was deposited as volcanic deposits. You should familiarize yourself what a pyroclastic deposit looks like. Then you should familiarize yourself on what a sandstone looks like. Volcanoes don’t produce any deposits at the rate of the thickness of this page annually. They produce deposits when they erupt. Volcanic deposits are products of volcanic action.
Just being real, I’m not going to read the rest of your article. They twist the truth way too much. I’d rather get my information from honest sources. Pyroclastic deposits are a result of volcanoes. Not global floods.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Just being real, posted 09-17-2011 4:37 AM Just being real has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 275 of 320 (634040)
09-18-2011 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Just being real
09-17-2011 4:37 AM


Just being real writes:
If you told me of a fossil that scientists believed to be a transitional, and I threw Piltdown man out there, the intent would be obvious.
Which brings me to another point. The fact that Piltdown Man was a hoax was discovered by paleontologists and biologists, because it contradicted newly discovered evidence and did not fit in with reality. Scientists don’t need and don't use Piltdown Man. Anyway, Piltdown Man has got nothing to do with the age of the earth or what we think about how rocks were deposited. Whether Piltdown Man was a hoax or not, would not change the science of Geology in the slightest.
Creationist hoaxes are discovered by scientists, but creationists keep on using them in every religious tract and at every opportunity. It’s because creationists can’t even pretend to do science without misleading laymen. Creationists have only got hoaxes. Nothing else. You repeating the complete untruth about uniformatists say millions of years passed between those layers is a very good example of that. You keep repeating something that surely is not true. Even when you have been pointed at the truth numerous times.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed a few paragraphs
Edited by Pressie, : Changed the spelling of the word wheter to whether.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Just being real, posted 09-17-2011 4:37 AM Just being real has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 276 of 320 (634041)
09-18-2011 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Robert Byers
09-17-2011 4:48 AM


Robert Beyers writes:
Yet the finale thing is that the earth shows to have been covered in water to account for the layers of sedimentary rock in great depths below the k-t line
Then how do you account for all those fossils of reptiles and mammals and land plants way below the k-t line? Why don't we find even one fossil of an elephant or a human below that line, but only way above?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Robert Byers, posted 09-17-2011 4:48 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 278 of 320 (634044)
09-18-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by RAZD
09-16-2011 11:23 AM


(Off topic)
Hi RAZD
Please be patient. I'm reading. You have to realize that I'm not familiar with the Grand Canyon at all. Never seen a "rock" over there. I'm more familiar with the "rocks" and depositional environments of the Fish river Canyon in Namibia. Fish River Canyon - Wikipedia. However, I'm trying to have a look at the literature! Quite a few differences, but also a few similarities. I'm trying to get used to, for example, the geochronology, as the nomenclature we use is very different to American nomenclature. Another link to the Fish river Canyon http://www.mme.gov.na/...tractions/Fish%20River%20Canyon.pdf
Edited by Pressie, : Had the word "one" just before "nomenclature". How it got there, I don't know. Getting old I guess. Changed it.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed the word I spelled geoshronolgy to geochronology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 09-16-2011 11:23 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 289 of 320 (634483)
09-22-2011 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Robert Byers
09-22-2011 1:51 AM


Re: Evidence?
Robert Byers writes:
I'm saying the k-t boundary is the flood boundary.
so millions of years is rejected.
Then you can’t use the k-t boundary. It doesn’t exist for you.
Robert Byers writes:
The evidence is that there are accumulations of sediment.
And the areas with no accumulations of sediment? How do they tie in with a global flood?
Robert Byers writes:
Yes layers are there but no reason to see them as otherwise then laid all together.
Lot’s of reasons. Unconformities, for one.
Robert Byers writes:
Just segregated flows within a bigger event.
Any evidence for this bigger event?
Robert Byers writes:
Above the line is indeed a different fauna/flora fossil assemblage.
There’s lots of lines with different fauna/flora assemblages above and below those lines.
Robert Byers writes:
This because it was laid in a later event under like processes but not the great flood.
Any evidence of this?
Robert Byers writes:
it all works.
Not in real life. Just in your dreams.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Robert Byers, posted 09-22-2011 1:51 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 290 of 320 (634487)
09-22-2011 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Robert Byers
09-22-2011 1:56 AM


Robert Byers writes:
Potential evidence is exactly what is found in the field.
Results in real life.
In the field we find lots of areas with no sedimentary accumulation. How does a global flood account for this?
Robert Byers writes:
Then interpretations of how this fits in a biblical framework.
Pseudo-science.
Robert Byers writes:
The evidence for great moving water is great accumulations of sediment.
Some evidence for great moving wind is also great accumulations of sediment. How does this fit into the global flood?
Robert Byers writes:
The sediment must be admitted by all to be there.
And where there’s no sediment? How does it fit into a global flood?
Robert Byers writes:
Then it simply means to say the sediment was squeezed by the very great weight that previously laid it and into stone.
Lots of processes drive lithification. Great weights don’t necessarily do it alone: on the ocean floors we find very expansive areas of unlithified sediments on top of those basalts.
Robert Byers writes:
Its potential evidence of a great flood moving about where one finds great unnatural accumulations of dirt.
So far we’ve only found natural accumulations of sediment. What would the characteristics of unnatural accumulations of dirt be? Do you have an example of an unnatural one?
Edited by Pressie, : Changed the word "from" to "for" in my first sentence.
Edited by Pressie, : Sorry, second sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Robert Byers, posted 09-22-2011 1:56 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 295 of 320 (634608)
09-23-2011 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by RAZD
09-22-2011 11:52 AM


Re: more than just layers, layers with different fossil species
Yes, Coccoliths show speciation in the fossil record. This is a good example Just a moment...
pnas writes:
This coincides well with the 10.8 Ma age for the split of these lineages based on analysis of coccolith morphology in the fossil record and supports the accuracy of our molecular-clock calibration.
It shows evolution, extinction of some species, etc.
Sorry, this is off-topic and I should not have answered.
Edited by Pressie, : Added last sentence
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2011 11:52 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2011 12:03 PM Pressie has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024