Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A

No one can respond to your list of points until you present the data they are drawn from.You need to go beyond, "I've read four monographs and I'm a scientist." Provide citations for the monographs you're referring to, or post links to them, or post graphics from them, or post quotes from them. So far all you're saying is, "I've read the monographs, they don't support the conclusions of paleontologists, trust me."About the Ridley quote, I think you'll find he meant precisely what I said he meant when he referred to special creation.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
For a very rudimentary illustration on how fossil succession is basically found:

​

(diagram deleted)

​

---This is expected by both uniformitarian and Flood Geology, it is evidence by interpretation. Of course any critique is urged.

​

---

Please explain. What are we looking at? Is this something that you made up? How is it explained by flood geology? How is it explained by mainstream geology? Are these species ranges? Are they transgressive sequences?

"JM: Your diagram makes no sense. By Nich do you mean Niche or is nich supposed to be some 'representative fossil'. Honestly though, I have no clue what your diagram is supposed to be representative of. It certainly has nothing to do with uniformitarian geology. By the way, what is your definition for uniformitarian?"
--Probably would be best to define it as a 'representative fossil'. As TB has slightly pointed out with his input, that quantities of fossils of the same type of fossilized organism is not just found in 'blocks', but linear decreases and increases in quantity.--Lighter pigments in my diagram would indicate less quantities. Of course this is not all near perfect data and I must put emphasis on it being a rudimentary sketch. For many organisms there are sudden jumps and decreases in quantities, by extinctions or (assuming uniformitarian geologic time) the effects of punctuated equilibrium. Of course extinctions are one reason compatible with either view in accounting for sudden loss in fossil find for a specific organism.
--The reasoning behind fossil depositions and why they are, in the majority, found similar to how this diagram shows is explained in the ToE by the factors of natural selection and a progression in establishing dominance back and forth through evolutionary decent with modification between species as they develop. However in Flood theory this would indicate that there were stages which the biospheres inhabitants suffered though what they could not live through and slowly died out. I, however, may tend to differ on TB's notion that this were due to hydrologic sorting, hydrologic sorting may have only taken much effect at all in small isolated places on the earth at short times, as well as possible slight mobility as sediment deposited and preceding the process of lithification. This will thus render hydrodynamics as it applies to fossil deposition highly minute.------------------

I agree with TCs qualifications of what I said. I think in some places I said hydrodynamic sorting/burial order and what TC said is what I meant by that. Survival order modulated by hydrodynamic sorting etc. Evoltuionsist sometimes suggest hydrodynamic sorting rather than microevoltuion for shellfish morphological patterns.Did anyone else read recently how most of the dinosaur tracks (there are hundreds of sites in the US now) found are (i) almost always in straight lines - escape IMO not hunting and (ii) are often in the same direction! The dinoasur graveyards are also often in the direction of the running. I will try and be a good boy and track down my sources.------------------
You are go for TLI

"Did anyone else read recently how most of the dinosaur tracks (there are hundreds of sites in the US now) found are (i) almost always in straight lines - escape IMO not hunting and (ii) are often in the same direction! The dinoasur graveyards are also often in the direction of the running. I will try and be a good boy and track down my sources."
--That would be a nice thing to consider, I had been wondering about exactly how water run-off would go. This could be a good addition in an argument for submarine canyons as evidence of the world Catastrophe. Along with other implications on hydrodynamics during the flood. I have seen an article that ICR had on estimated oceanic water currents at the climax of the flood. However didn't have the chance to read it.------------------

Here are three monogrpahs I found helpful:1. MJ Benton Vertebrate Paleontology, Uwin Hyman, London (1990)
2. J Chaline (sorry I've got the library call numbers only at his point)
3. R Enay (call numbers only)In number 1. there are about 20 balloon diagrams summarizing the fossil distribution of all (?) families of vertebrates in the GC.I hope you guys unerstand what I mean by balloon diagrams? As TC and I have been saying (and I'm sure many of you appreciate) the index fossil idea is a digital idea. The reality is a statistical distribution that looks like a balloon if you draw abundance horizontally and strata/geological time level vertically. As TC and I say it is surely understandable that this is what you would see in a burial of ecologies. I agree you also expect this for evolution over time.My 6 pts on how to do paleontology are undoubtedly correct. If anyone thinks there is any other way to do paleontology let me know. I promise to back up the six points with refs ASAP but for now I can solemly swear that that is how it is done!------------------
You are go for TLI

BTW, I've seen talks on Paleomagnetism sprucing up in areas, thought these links may be helpful to anyone interested in geo/paleomagnetism.General: http://www.grisda.org/origins/10066.htm
1997 Computer Modeling of the Geodynamics of the Dynamo: http://www.igpp.lanl.gov/Geodynamo.html--The first one I listed I had just plucked out of my favorites, I havent gotten to read it and had forgotten about it. What I was looking for was right under my noes maybe ------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-16-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I agree with TCs qualifications of what I said. I think in some places I said hydrodynamic sorting/burial order and what TC said is what I meant by that. Survival order modulated by hydrodynamic sorting etc. Evoltuionsist sometimes suggest hydrodynamic sorting rather than microevoltuion for shellfish morphological patterns.

---

To refute your survival order argument (and in the words of a well-known creationist on these boards): one word ... 'trees.' Have you forgotten about your little problem with flowering plants? And just how does hydrodynamic sorting influence that problem? I hate to rain on your little parade, but please explain.

quote:

---

Did anyone else read recently how most of the dinosaur tracks (there are hundreds of sites in the US now) found are (i) almost always in straight lines - escape IMO not hunting and (ii) are often in the same direction! The dinoasur graveyards are also often in the direction of the running. I will try and be a good boy and track down my sources.

---

Yes, do that. Do you understand the type of sediments that dinosaur tracks are found in? What might they have been hunting? In fact, why would an herbivore be hunting at all? Why would they have walked in anything but a straight line? Have you seen tracks of migrating animals? Why do you jump immediately to the conclusions that they are escaping from something?

Edge, we obviously believe that ecology, mobility, survival, swimming ability and hydrodynamic properties are responsible for the GC. These things are not easy to model but some attempts have bben made with good preliminary results. I don't know about flowering plants of the top of my head.I'm talking about a preponderance of fast running herbivores and carnivores at most track sites. It doesn't prove anything, it's only suggestive Edge. The fossil graveyard locations are interestiong though. Do you know about paleocurrents too? Do you know that the rapid currents which laid down the North American sediments were in the same direction for '100s of millions of years'.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]

[QUOTE] Do you know about paleocurrents too? Do you know that the rapid currents which laid down the North American sediments were in the same direction for '100s of millions of years'.
[/B][/QUOTE]JM: Gross oversimplification on your part. You provide no specificity and no references. For a 'Phded' scientist 'working in the mainstream' you sure do play fast and loose with specifics! Is this the type of research you churn out?CheersJoe Meert

I haven't seen you posting a lot of refs either Joe. I have read these things and in several places I have promised to post refs. I've read most of Selley, Pettijohn and Blatt et al and have seen the paleocurrent data with my own eyes.Can I let you know what I've been doing the last year? I have decided to go back to the mainstream literature to see to what extent the creationists are correct. I know they are correct about genomics and micro/macro evoltuion etc first hand. I am so far impressed that they are generally on the ball in the areas of geology and especially paleontology.Where I feel some lack on the creaitonist part is that, except in their technical journals, they haven't fully explained why and how mainstream science could be so wrong. I have decided to get to the bottom of it myself. I have got a good feeling now for how and why Lyell thought he had the goelogical porblem solved and yet IMO got it wrong. I also understand why paleontologists intitially thought that fosils spoke of evoltuion and then in the middle parts of the 20th century clung on to a pretty dirty secret until Gould released them (IMO OK).------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, we obviously believe that ecology, mobility, survival, swimming ability and hydrodynamic properties are responsible for the GC. These things are not easy to model but some attempts have bben made with good preliminary results.

---

You mean there is no quantitative model? Tell us how the mobility of trees affected their position withing the geological column. Or maybe it was their intelligence.

quote:

---

I don't know about flowering plants of the top of my head.

---

Hmm, one of the problems of an incomplete education.

quote:

---

I'm talking about a preponderance of fast running herbivores and carnivores at most track sites. It doesn't prove anything, it's only suggestive Edge.

---

Just going by what you say, it is suggestive that the herbivores were running away from the carnivores. So maybe it was a hunting scenario after all? It thought you said that you had a great respect for Occam's Razor.

quote:

---

The fossil graveyard locations are interestiong though. Do you know about paleocurrents too? Do you know that the rapid currents which laid down the North American sediments were in the same direction for '100s of millions of years'.

---

This one I would like some documentation of. If you mean that the prevailing currents were the same direction, I can see that. On the other hand I have personally seen current reversals in the rock record. And what do you mean by rapid? Does that include the limestones and cherts?

"Hmm, one of the problems of an incomplete education."
--I for one am getting a big annoyed at the intensity of the negative rhetoric being thrown at Tranquility... I was not aware that Evo's were all wise and all intelligent in the vastness of scientific fields. I also do recall them getting rather edgy that Creationists will post work on a topic that is not 'directly' related to their field of study whether or not it is a bit related or not. I do not find this prejudiced bias figure at all pleasing which is spreading like a virus here. Could we ease up on the sarcasm a little whether or not you think anyone's assertions are erroneous or not. (I'm speaking generally, not just you edge)------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Hmm, one of the problems of an incomplete education."
--I for one am getting a big annoyed at the intensity of the negative rhetoric being thrown at Tranquility... I was not aware that Evo's were all wise and all intelligent in the vastness of scientific fields. I also do recall them getting rather edgy that Creationists will post work on a topic that is not 'directly' related to their field of study whether or not it is a bit related or not. I do not find this prejudiced bias figure at all pleasing which is spreading like a virus here. Could we ease up on the sarcasm a little whether or not you think anyone's assertions are erroneous or not.

---

Well, TB was the one who wished to emphasize his PhD and his extensive readings of professional geological literature. Perhaps I take offense that someone could, by reading a few papers, come here and question the hard work of thousands of professional geologists over that last two hundred years and then imply that they are too blind to see their errors. It also undermines all the years put in by students to get a basic degree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Hmm, one of the problems of an incomplete education."
--I for one am getting a big annoyed at the intensity of the negative rhetoric being thrown at Tranquility... I was not aware that Evo's were all wise and all intelligent in the vastness of scientific fields. I also do recall them getting rather edgy that Creationists will post work on a topic that is not 'directly' related to their field of study whether or not it is a bit related or not. I do not find this prejudiced bias figure at all pleasing which is spreading like a virus here. Could we ease up on the sarcasm a little whether or not you think anyone's assertions are erroneous or not. (I'm speaking generally, not just you edge)

​

---

I am doing to him exactly what I am doing to you. I am asking for the data. So far, zilch. If you want to overturn the paradigm, then you must do so by presenting new data. Posting "i believe it statements' is not the same thing. I am particularly insistent with TB because he/she claims to be a "Phded' scientists 'working in the mainstream'. He/she knows what science requires. You, at 15, can be excused a bit more for your lack of supporting data for your statements. at the same time, you do actually try to present data. TB's posts do not supply anything more than 'innuendo by faulty quotation'.CheersJoe Meert