Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

quote:

---

if the distortion happened while soft, why do the inclusions, and mineral elements also distort? if it happened to mud, they'd shift, not bend.

---

Seems like there is a lot of room between 'soft', and not 'fully hardened'!

quote:

---

you're arguing a BIG FLOOD. could that be it? i mean, you know, it was a miracle, i guess the laws of physics didn't really apply.

---

A big flood was one of the events of the flood year, but not one, in itself that accounts for all things.

quote:

---

yes. we'd expect one big flood. what we have is a lot of little floods of rivers, interspliced with all kind of other geologic activity. and no big flood. curious.

---

Curious indeed, the things that lead you folks to declare how something was a 'river'.

quote:

---

i live in florida. know when it floods here? when we have a hurricane.

---

And when does all life on earth end in Florida? Was that each June? There is, please brace yourself, a big world outside of Florida. And, hold on, yes, even outside the US of A.

quote:

---

There is one or two "comet" events (one really big one) at the time of the end of the dinosaurs. What "phase" of the flood was it?

---

Regardless of what phase, if it was a flood time event, wouln't the reason it killed dinos, according to evos anyhow, really involve a long period of time? If it was in the flood year, these comets, around the wiping out of dinos, maybe coincidentally, it would make sense to me that evo philosophy would simply use the comets and some imagined great time period, to give credit to why the dino's died. I could be wrong here, someone know if it was a long time period there?
Hey, Ned, is it legal to write a little booklet with some of the debates I have been in on the evo forum? Say, if I gave credit as to where they came from? Kind of like a short story?

quote:

---

I assume all these phases happened over one year. Could you correct me if that's wrong.

---

Actually, I'd be a little careful in assumptions there Nedy. I don't really like sweeping huge questions. I already raised a thought as to how maybe if there was a seperation of the spirit, and physical worlds, perhaps that may account for say the cambrian layer. If this was the case, and I don't yet know, then under that scenario, the cambrian would not be a flood layer.

quote:

---

The only reasonable conclustion for now is NONE.

---

So you seem to be saying evo thought is that there really was no grass pollen before the flood. If you are so certain (and I don't really doubt that it may have been a different type of grass) then answer me this. Since you say no grass was, as we know it in pre flood layers, where do you believe the flood boundry is? You must have some ide, since you seem to draw a line in the geologic sand as to post and pre flood. This should be an interesting answer from you, since you do not admittedly, I think, even believe there was a flood! ha.

Then I guess you have to describe what you've made up to expain "all things". Since I think that all you have is a Bible with just one flood and nothing else that I'm aware of.When you finish that description then you can show how that explains the fossil record.So far you haven't begun.

You are showing how "according to Ark" the flood (and whatever else happened ) explains the fossil order. The phases are yours. You explain them. It sounds like there will be a lot of "I don't know yet" from you. If you have an explanation give it. If you don't say so and move on.I won't assume anything anymore. I will wait for you to explain what phases there were, what layers are the result of what and how the whole thing explains the fossil order. Exactly, there was no flood. You are the one that suggests that some things are pre and some post flood. I am just asking you which is which. Until you tell us there is no further need for discussion.You see, Arkathon, we have been through this before. It turns out that you don't know what is flood and what isn't. Until you show otherwise we'll have to hold off discussion since there isn't a flood to discuss without you showing where it's results are and are not.

quote:

---

I won't assume anything anymore. I will wait for you to explain what phases there were

---

But, you say, "..there was no flood". So you already, along with embracing granny, assume everything. You just pick your assumptions.
You don't know what happened, as does not anyone, really, completely.
Yet the evos present this grand conjecture of what is heralded as a complete record.
Yet a ten year old geology book, or 40 year old one would be quite outdated, as this record needs much update! Today's versions, also, no doubt, are doomed to be a laugh in the near future.
Come to think of it I havn't heard you say there could not have been a non pollen pre flood grass. All you seem to offer is vague, and veiled threats about being 'in a corner'.
I propose a concept about the cambrian layer as related to the split, you have nothing to say about it.
I ask if the comets under discussion as having killed dinos did so in a long time frame, as conceived by evos, no reply from you. Why would I ponder the exact phase of the flood year for the comets, if they, in actuality were only a splash in the bucket, having little to do with dino deaths?
Not everything I know or could find out about the flood, need I discuss with you. If we were close to agreement we could cuddle up complete layer concepts with you. As it is, much smaller items can only be addressed.
So far, your threats blow by with no substance. Huff, and puff, and go ahead and try to blow my house down! You have no chance, only empty hot air to work with. My house is built on a rock. Yours however will not stand up to the storm!
By the way, really, is it OK to use some threads here from the evo site to put in a booklet?

That there was no flood isn't an assumption, it's a conclusion. There's nothing "assumed" about a conclusion; it's a position reached through evidence. Right. That's how we can trust it - it continually gets "more right". That's why we know not to trust the Bible - it is never updated in the light of additional information. It's eternally wrong. You'd have to get the written permission of every single poster you planned on quoting, and describe to them exactly the context and excerpts you planned on using. There's nobody here who can give you blanket permission to copy other people's posts.Given that unapproved quote-mining is one of the most hated characteristics of creationists, I doubt you're going to find many evolutionist posters who are going to let you quote them without a very clear idea of exactly what you're going to use and how you're going to use it.

quote:

---

That there was no flood isn't an assumption, it's a conclusion.

---

That evolution is not the way it happened is not an assumption, it's a conclusion. A conclusion based on evidence that it is not proved, and is merely a preffered interpretation of data, and lack of it.

quote:

---

That's how we can trust it - it continually gets "more right". That's why we know not to trust the Bible - it is never updated in the light of additional information.

---

Reminds me of the new farmer who wanted to improve on how much was spent on maintaining his cows. He said he managed to get them off hay, and was getting them off water as well, when they up and died! His neighbor asked what happened, he said they 'died of improvements'.

quote:

---

You'd have to get the written permission of every single poster you planned on quoting,

---

OK, so no then, thanks for the info.

We all know that Walt Browns liquefication/water lensing is a quite interesting theory/science explaining fossil sorting (settling within the liquefication suspended sediments water lens)as the fossils sorted upwards, you all should realize more than one varve can be laid down per year, like whats being seen formed via undercurrents, similar to Walts liquefication water lensing principles, etc... Like how can one be bound to only one annual varve per year, when you have studies like the Bear Lake varve demonstrating the linkages with sedimentation and hydroclimate that can vary overtime, and like how would not these under currents not be affecting varves in kettle lakes formed as the glaciers melted, contributing their silt/organics from the flood, as these glacier waters formed via the flood melted, etc...http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/LamoureuxAIn.htmlThe results from the Bear Lake varve record underscore the importance of process work for interpreting the hydroclimatic record contained in the sediments, and demonstrate that the linkages between sedimentation and hydroclimatic processes may change with time.P.S. We see examples like Lake Walensee, Switzerland, where they have proof that more than one annual varve can be laid down per year.
Page not found – Creation In The CrossfireI also heard a ww2 plane was found buried in the ice, and when they dug it out the snow varves didn't add up to them being annual varves, cause the annual varves would of placed the plane being buried before the war. I guess scientists will have to move a glacier to account for the extra varves, even though they have a lot of snow falls to easily account for the depth of the burial, its interesting that the plane was buried on a stable ice field (one thats not moving), etc...Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation ResearchOne last point, acquifiers are sediments that are not yet compressed into sedimentary rock, these acquifiers are the leftover evidences of the biblical flood liquefication water lens event, the problem were finding within municipalities that draw these acquifiers down, is that the macro space containing the waters compress and once the acquifier sediments are compressed the acquifier is unable to uncompressed via the rainwater recharge principle, more evidence that these sediments were laid down within the bibilical flood, via the principle of liquefication/water lensing, its like mineral water, not salt water, more evidence of the world flood, because these waters are like fossils, cause only a world flood could explain the fresh waters within the sediments, its not like salt water that bonds the colloids affecting sediment layerings over the oceans, more evidence supporting the fresh water lensing over the continents, varves, the freshwater water table, etc...You then have the rocks still rising up each year in the farmers fields, via the frost pressing them up. These rocks were sorted quite recently, supporting the biblical flood was the event that caused the glaciation that was a part of the sorting of these rocks, frost only goes approximately 3.5 ro 4 feet deep(the reason contractors lay foundations below the frost level so the frost doesn't lift your foundations), if these rocks were laid down millions of years ago, would they not of already all surfaced via the frost pressing them annually upwards to the earths surface.This message has been edited by whatever, 07-05-2004 10:17 AM

the question is why already pre-solidified inclusions distort as well, if the overall distortion happened while the sediment is soft. funny, i thought we were talking about the bible here... i'm sorry, i didn't realize we were JUST MAKING THINGS UP.and the question is "why are there no signs of a big flood?" we're not talking about other stuff, we're talking about the flood. i don't care if there were a lot of comments, they're not gonna sort fossils based on things like tooth development. it's called geology. back on topic, you said floods weren't associated with things like hurricanes. i was relating to you stuff like the fact that miami was under about 3 feet of water a few years back, because of a hurricane. in fact, floods are ALWAYS weather related. even the bible claims that RAIN caused the flood.perhaps your question was meant to ask the last time my part of the state of completely underwater? if memory serves, about 10-15 million years, this part of the state was a thriving aquatic habitat. we have a lot of primitive whale fossils here, bookended on top and bottom with fossils of land creatures."ah-ha!" you say, "proof of a flood!" only they lived here, multiple generations. and, as you said, "there is, please brace yourself, a big world outside of Florida" which does not show evidence of being underwater at the same time.

becuase maybe god covers his tracks really well. maybe he specifically makes stuff to decieve us. is this a more logical conclusion from the lack of flood evidence? no one is saying the fossil record or geologic column is complete. afterall, the earth recycles itself, and eventually the lower layers melt.however, layers have been onserved all over the world. specific layers, which match everywhere, and contain the same types of fossils. in many places, the entire geologic column can even be viewed at once. welcome to progress. little things are fixed all the time.when was the last revision of the observed geologic column? never? the basic concepts of geology haven't changed in a long time. just some of the details and theories. the celestial object claimed to be responsible for the death of the dinosaurs impacted -- guess what? water.a six-mile asteroid impacting the planet is quite a significant event. it would have never touched the water it fell on, boiling it away into steam from quite a distance. it would have thrown up enough pulverized rock into the atmosphere to block the sun for a long enough period for plants and animals to die because of it. this dust would settle more or less the same, all over the world.we have a record of such an event in the geologic column. it's called the k-t boundary. we know it was long enough for things to die because dinosaur fossils go right up to the k-t bound, are found nowhere after. and we know it was from outer space because of the presence of iridium in quantities not found on this planet.this is a world-wide layer, unique in those properties all over the world.where's the flood layer? my house is built of concrete, and has stood up through a dozen hurricanes, if you really must know.take a look at the accuracy of the rock you're building your house on, and read something on its history. you might find you've gypped, as far as rocks go.

you know, including the data where it's been observed. or the data plainly obvious to someone with a small collection of hominid fossils.remember, the conclusion of evolution is based entirely on observed data. you can't just say it's not there. what did darwin just make stuff up, and paid everyone off to believe it?

quote:

---

the celestial object claimed to be responsible for the death of the dinosaurs impacted -- guess what? water.

---

Surprise, surprise, water!

quote:

---

a six-mile asteroid impacting the planet is quite a significant event. it would have never touched the water it fell on, boiling it away into steam from quite a distance.

---

If this thing you speak of was an asteroid 6 miles wide. By the way, how deep would the water be, that you are assuming the comet fell on? 2 miles deep? 20 feet deep?

quote:

---

it would have thrown up enough pulverized rock into the atmosphere to block the sun for a long enough period for plants and animals to die because of it

---

Causing plants and animals to die in a flood already having done the job, would be of no concequence.

quote:

---

this dust would settle more or less the same, all over the world.

---

Assuming what? If, for example, it fell in over a mile of water, what dust is it we are talking? How about even deeper? What if it say, fell on an area of much magma, even?

quote:

---

we know it was long enough for things to die because dinosaur fossils go right up to the k-t bound,

---

Ahh, so because also, at this time a lot of dinos died, it must have been a long time?

quote:

---

we know it was from outer space because of the presence of iridium in quantities not found on this planet.

---

OK, so how much of this stuff was found, precisely in the pre flood world? How much, also was found under the pre flood world, that was perhaps released with the fountains of the deep? How much cosmic activity did God bring into play, that may have resulted in some of this stuff?

quote:

---

where's the flood layer?

---

Which one? Also, go ahead and dazzle us with 'where isn't it?'!

quote:

---

my house is built of concrete, and has stood up through a dozen hurricanes, if you really must know.

---

The kind of storms that are coming, however, evolution will not stand.

quote:

---

welcome to progress. little things are fixed all the time

---

No problem, many of us can understand how you feel a need to prop up the silly theory as long as you can, and many changes are the order of the day. Evos remind me a little of some por guy with a leaky roof, in the rain, running around, trying to put buckets under the leaks, or patch up a spot on the roof, or whatever desperate thing they can do to stop the rain getting in.

quote:

---

no one is saying the fossil record or geologic column is complete. afterall, the earth recycles itself, and eventually the lower layers melt.

---

So you, then would not be like those evos who demand a complete record from the not God omitting science types.

not really, considering more than 2/3 of the planet is covered in it. the impact crater is partially off the coast the of the yucatan peninsula, and in the gulf of mexico. oh, the tidal waves must have been a surfer's wet dream, or maybe nightmare. but that doesn't equate to a world-wide flood, especially not one for 190 days. and the waves certainly wouldn't have gotten very far inland. thus, the "more or less the same" and not "exactly the same" if you fill the atmosphere with dust, and block out the sun, the plants die first. then the herbivores. meanwhile, the omnivores and carnivores have a field day. but then they die. this takes a little while.the only other possibility is that event killed everything basically instantly. which would make sense, seeing as how not everything died. crocodiles, for instance, made it through just fine. what?iridium is rare on earth, very rare. it's not found in any measurable quantity anywhere before or after the k-t boundary except in meteor impact sites.there's a lot of it in the k-t boundary, everywhere you look at the k-t boundary.floods don't bring elements not found on the planet, celestial objects do. simple answer? ANYWHERE. and what do you mean "which flood layer?" the bible speaks of ONE flood, not a lot of little ones. we've got a lot of local ones at different times. no big one. really? it's stood creationist arguments since the day it was thought up. it was actually apparently a response to a creationist argument from incredulity. did you know that? in the 150 some odd years it's been around, not one thing has even shook its basic principles. there's been debate over methods, rates, etc, but no one in the scientific community debates it happens. you get laughed at when you say that something doesn't happen that has been clearly observed.you said nothing to my challenge to read about the history of the bible, from people who study it, historians, and archaeologists. you might find that the bible doesn't stand too well for a very good reason. even if you believe god himself wrote the first draft, people have just plain messed with it on a gross scale for too long for it have retained an historical accuracy.the flood story is a good example. why do you believe a babylonian myth? actually, that's a good analysis of the christian fundamentalist, save for one things: the christian fundamentalist would also deny the fact that it's raining. what a silly theory that would be! what?and for the record, i'm a christian.

quote:

---

if you fill the atmosphere with dust, and block out the sun, the plants die first. then the herbivores. meanwhile, the omnivores and carnivores have a field day. but then they die. this takes a little while.

---

Guess your theory was a little too dusty.
[quotes]f you fill the atmosphere with dust, and block out the sun, the plants die first. then the herbivores. [/quote] Yes, if you had enough dust, and enough time!

quote:

---

iridium is rare on earth, very rare. it's not found in any measurable quantity anywhere before or after the k-t boundary except in meteor impact sites.

---

Yes, arks are fairly rare, as are people living almost a thousand years, as well. But the question is not how much of the stuff is now here. Under, over, and on, a world you can only dream of. Well, dream against, to be more precise! [/quote]

quote:

---

floods don't bring elements not found on the planet

---

Of course not, not now.

quote:

---

and what do you mean "which flood layer?" the bible speaks of ONE flood, not a lot of little ones

---

Yes, a year of events, that comprise the, as some put it, Global End Of Life One Great Year. Should we imagine all this to have put only one layer down?

quote:

---

really? it's stood creationist arguments since the day it was thought up.

---

Ha. well said!

quote:

---

you get laughed at when you say that something doesn't happen that has been clearly observed.

---

We'll see Who has the last laugh!

quote:

---

you might find that the bible doesn't stand too well

---

Ha. In your poor mind, perhaps.

quote:

---

why do you believe a babylonian myth?

---

Dis they have flood stories too? Join the club, planet wide flood stories abound. Coincidence?

quote:

---

and for the record, i'm a christian.

---

Fine, long as you are not a believer!

An erroneous one, but you are correct. That would be a conclusion.The correct conclusion, however, based on the most evidence, is that the theory of evolution is as accurate description of the history of life on Earth as our data allows. At such time that more data is uncovered either the theory will become more accurate, or it will be abandoned for a more accurate theory.That theory will not, in alll likelyhood, be creationism, because creationism is consistently contradicted by evidence. The problem for you is that so far, we've gained so much by moving away from the Bible.Look, let's put it this way. If the Bible really was accurate in every way, and science is the process by which our theories get more accurate (which it undeniably is), wouldn't scientific theories be moving towards the Bible, instead of away from it?As it is now, the only theoreticians who move towards the Bible are the ones for whom the Bible, and not being right, is the goal. When you construct theory with an eye for accuracy in terms of drescribing the world, you inexorably move away from the position of the Bible.We get more right when we move away from the Bible. If the Bible were true, the opposite should happen. Well, it's not a "no", you just have to ask. It's been done before - forum exchanges have appeared in books - you just have to get the permission of everyone you plan on quoting.