Summations Only

You are NOT here for a debate - friendly or otherwise.
You have ignored all the friendly and polite answers to your questions, and instead reply to just the snarky ones.
This simply makes you look like a troll.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This is just a slight modification to your previous statement ("no fossils forming today" became "very few") with no hint that you read any of the responses.Rather than forcing people to repeat what they said, if you haven't already perhaps you could go back and read the responses, and then if you still think that "very few fossils are formed today" you could explain what makes you think this is true.--Percy

I don't know where creationists got this nutty idea about rapid burial. It is demonstrable that many fossils were not rapidly buried. When they are, the skeletons are found intact, and paleontologists get all excited and start singing the Happy Paleontologist Song. They get excited because this is rare.Here's a quote from a book I've just been reading on mudstone: So when you claim that your flood would have created "perfect conditions for fossil formation", then this is actually an argument against the flood, since the vast majority of fossils were demonstrably formed under conditions which were far from perfect. This is why what we mostly find is a tooth here, a vertebra there, half a bivalve detached from its other half ... and in 99.9 of cases, no soft parts at all.Perhaps you'd like to try again and explain how your flood explains the actual fossil record, the one we find in the rocks, not the one creationists made up. * To explain the bit about dissolution, the stuff from which bones and shells are made is soluble. Depending on the temperature and depth (I'll skip the technical details) a shell will start to pit and corrode as it lies on the seafloor awaiting burial. Extensive pitting shows that it had to wait a long time. (Of course, if it has to wait long enough, it will entirely dissolve and there won't be any shell left to examine.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Floods create completely different conditions. A flood will mix materials of different sizes, jumbling them all together and, in the case of large animals, probably rip them apart. The fossils I have seen are mostly in well-sorted sediments, being fine sands and silts.

---

If you put various sediments in a blender and then lay them down with water, they will all go back neatly into layers. Kids can do this experiment at home!

Yeah? Neat trick.Now try and make it so that all the sediments that contain trilobite fossils are at the bottom and all those that contain whale fossils are at the top.In the real world fossil bearing strata are nothing like what you'd get in your blender example. They show clear evidence of having been deposited slowly, layer on top of layer. They show ancient orders evolving, diverging and eventually dying out. They show younger lineages emerging. They show complex environments. They do not show the chaotic jumble that would result from what you describe.Once again, you're over-simplifying. A naive approach like this is hopelessly inadequate in describing what we actually see.Mutate and Survive

If you did the same with diatoms, fine clay, and leaf debris from the last 10,000 years would this process create 150,000 alternating layers of diatoms and clay particles where the leaf debris is sorted by tiny differences in carbon 14?

Can a 150-day flood repeat that sequence a few thousand times? I can find you some cores out of gas wells where actual nature did that.

First, you would need 150,000 seasons worth of diatoms without any contamination from marine plankton in a system exposed to ocean water. Second, you still need to sort leaf and insect debris by tiny differences in 14C. Did you see these features in the gas well cores?(I am referring to Lake Suigetsu for those in the know)Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

That experiment is one of the best examples of the total dishonesty as well as the total gullibility of Creationists.If you really want to learn we can have yet another thread on the subject.

This analogy is not accurate to the flood conditions you and other creationists have been proposing.There are many things wrong, and other posters have already pointed out some of these.Given the massive amount of contrary evidence in the archaeological and geological record, I can't believe anyone could support the notion of a global flood during relatively recent times, ca. 4,350 years ago. The early creation geologists gave up on that idea just about 200 years ago--and they set out to prove the flood! Evidence showing the global flood never happened during recent times has only accumulated since then, while no credible evidence has been found to support such a flood.In my career as an archaeologist I have tested probably over 100 sites whose time spans included the date most often attributed to the global flood by biblical scholars, ca. 4,350 years ago. I have never found evidence of either massive erosion or sedimentary deposition at that time period.What I have found instead is continuity of human cultures, mtDNA, fauna and flora, and sedimentation. The things that must have occurred if there was a global flood at that time--discontinuities in all of those areas--are not found.The same results are reported by my colleagues elsewhere in the United States and around the world.But lest you think that we are idiots and can't see evidence for floods, I would direct you to various websites on the Channeled Scablands in eastern Washington. Post-glacial floods repeatedly scoured that area as ice dams in western Montana periodically held back and released meltwaters. We can establish the dates of the floods and their extent. Here are a couple of good websites for your edification:http://www.cr.nps.gov/...logy/publications/inf/72-2/sec5.htmChanneled Scabland Eastern Washington Ice Age Floods Lake Missoula

Yes, they can and if they do it 260,000 times with alternate wetting and drying cycles they could create an approximation of the Castile formation.

quote:

---

The laminations of the Castile Formation (as well as those in the uppermost Bell Canyon and Salado Formations) have been interpreted as annual varves (Udden, 1924; Anderson and others, 1972). The calcite and organic-matter layers represent periodic (annual?) freshening of the water and the development of plankton blooms. The anhydrite layers represent restricted, more evaporitic conditions. Considering the basinal nature of the depositional setting, the obvious aridity, and the prior influx of clastic terrigenous material, it seems odd that the Castile-Salado evaporites contain virtually no detrital windblown silt. It is possible that the alkaline waters may have dissolved much of the original silt influx.

​

Approximately 260,000 calcite-evaporite cycles have been counted in the uppermost Bell Canyon-Castile-Salado sequence. This implies extremely rapid deposition of thousands of feet of evaporites in the Delaware basin, a common situation with major evaporite deposits. The Castile cycles provide one of the longest continuous climatic records from any time interval in the Phanerozoic. The record of "varve" thicknesses has been analyzed recently (Anderson, 1982, 1984, 1988, 1991) for larger-scale cyclicities. Major peaks were found in the range of 20,000 and 100,000 years, indicating that Milankovitch-scale climatic variations were active during deposition of the unit.

---

sourceYep, them kids could show that according to your model, there had to be 260,000 great floods with a time interval of a bit under 12 minutes each during the 150 day time period. (260,000/150/24=.198X60=11.9)PS - Thanks Coragyps for reminding me about the Castile a few years back.Edited by anglagard, : Change title, the spirit of Admin Moose lives on.

quote:

---

If you put various sediments in a blender and then lay them down with water, they will all go back neatly into layers. Kids can do this experiment at home!

---

Not true, if you put various sediments in a blender and lay them down with water, it forms one layer of sediment, sorted with the course stuff at the bottom, grading into the finest stuff at the top.Edited by Pressie, : Spelling

Do you have any idea what its like to be at this forum, surrounded by thousands of evolutionists? Its not easy you know.

You might find it easier if you instead replied to the friendly and polite answers and ignored the snarky ones.In the alternative, feel free at any time to create a thread in a Great Debate format and you can limit the number and identity of participants as you wish.

It would be more accurate to say that it produces one layer, grading upwards from coarse to fine. (It would produce discrete layers if there were discrete sizes of clasts in the original sediment, e.g. gravel and clay, and again these layers would grade upwards from coarse to fine.)This is not what we find in the geological record.Let us know when you're going to explain what we do find. A first step would be for you to find out something about what it is your flood is meant to be explaining, i.e. the geological record.