Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

quote:

---

Absolutely false. Evolutionary theory is supported by data,

---

Selective data with absolutely false assumptions.

quote:

---

Are you then admitting that there is no evidence for a global flood other than your personal beliefs?

---

Are you admitting evolution is supported only by your personal beliefs?

quote:

---

If not, show us the data that can only be explained by a global flood.

---

You can cipher it any way you want.

quote:

---

However, through the fossil record, we know that the lineage leading up to the tasmanian wolf was far removed from the lineage that led to the NA wolf.

---

Fossil record and lineage don't neccasarily jive, I don't think
Besides is it impossible that God made several similar creatures that ended up on different continents after the flood? After all many feel the continents were together at one time.

quote:

---

Sometimes younger on top, sometimes older on top, you should say.
Just like anything in life, there are exceptions

---

Yes, there are. And it can be considered also that their arrangement of the evidence and facts are in error, and that there are less subtle reasons-like maybe it isn't really older!

quote:

---

What we want from you is the mechanism, the "how" so to speak, that caused the fossils to be ordered in a way that supports evolution other than slow deposition over billions of years.

---

If you're looking for support for evolution I can't help you. That simply isn't how we got here.

quote:

---

The longer the span of time, the fewer similarities should be present since mutations will accumulate in separate populations/species. This is exactly what they found.

---

Well surprise surprise! By the by, could there be any other conceivable explanation for why few similarities in trees could exist?

quote:

---

If grass was always around it should be in the same layers as dinosaurs. Why isn't it?

---

What if grass never used to be reproduced by pollen? Is this a possibility?

this post seems to be a reply to one of mine. It quotes something I never heard of, and talks about links which I don't think I've used in a coon's age. Must be some mistake.

quote:

---

this post seems to be a reply to one of mine. It quotes something I never heard of, and talks about links which I don't think I've used in a coon's age. Must be some mistake.

---

In message 7 of this thread you mentioned Rundle formation. I am not sure what that is in regards to, but it is the only piece of evidence that you have even hinted at that would support your position. I was hoping you could expand on this so that this doesn't turn into an "Am no, Am too" sort of debate.

quote:

---

Selective data with absolutely false assumptions.

---

Could you be specific about the data that is being ignored and the assumptions that have been shown to be false? Empty assertions are hard to argue against.

quote:

---

Are you admitting evolution is supported only by your personal beliefs?

---

Nope, evolution is supported by the data, not my personal beliefs. My only personal belief is that the scientists have been honest in how they ran their experiments and how they collected the data. However, given that science is based on objective observations, at any time the experiments or observations of any scientist can be checked for repeatability.

quote:

---

Fossil record and lineage don't neccasarily jive, I don't think

---

They do. I even gave you an example. Do you want more examples, or are you going to handwave those away as well?

quote:

---

Besides is it impossible that God made several similar creatures that ended up on different continents after the flood? After all many feel the continents were together at one time.

---

There was a supercontinent that included most of the land mass we see today. The Australia complex broke away first, and so we would expect the most DNA dissimilarity between australian species and the rest of the species across the globe regardless of morphology. This is exactly what we see. Or are you just saying that it happened by chance?

quote:

---

Yes, there are. And it can be considered also that their arrangement of the evidence and facts are in error, and that there are less subtle reasons-like maybe it isn't really older!

---

But we can tell if there has been an inversion separate from the fact that the layers display non-conformity with other geologic columns. It is no different than detecting evidence tampering at a crime scene. If one crime scene is tampered with, do we have to let all of the criminals go?Added in edit:

quote:

---

What if grass never used to be reproduced by pollen? Is this a possibility?

---

What if grass used to walk around and have sex like humans? What if the stork was resposible for each new seedling? Every single angiosperm uses pollen, why should grass be any different, either now or in the past? And while your at it, try and explain why the pollen and the grass, which weren't connected at the time, end up in the same layers and nowhere else.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 06-25-2004 06:51 PM

quote:

---

I am not sure what that is in regards to, but it is the only piece of evidence that you have even hinted at that would support your position. I was hoping you could expand on this

---

Mt Rundle is just a mountain in the Canadian Rockies. The whole Can Rockies is mostly sedimentary. Mountains consist of formations like the Rundle group, which has some branches like the livingstone formation. Rundle rock in one form or another can be found from the grand canyon to the artic. Like other Rockies formations, it is rich in fossils, especially sea life. Crinoids and braciopods for example. I was looking for a specific area to zoom in on, rather than the worldwide scale all encompassing answers Ned seemed to be crying for.

quote:

---

I was looking for a specific area to zoom in on, rather than the worldwide scale all encompassing answers Ned seemed to be crying for.

---

Go into detail. I would love to hear a few arguments that support your position instead criticizing evolution. Even if evolution is shown to be wrong, young earth creationism still has to be supported by the data. Creationism doesn't win by default.

But you can not zero in. You are asserting that there was a great, world-wide flood. So that flood had to be everywhere and must explain all of the evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To be honest, I was thinking about the cosmos. Selective data being ignoring the world of evidence and witnesses for supernatural, and spiritual, such as spirits able to go faster than light-and assumptions like nothing can go faster than our light, and it was billions of years in the travelling etc. Also assumptions like if a fossil is in a rock, using the fossil (assuming it eveolved) to give old age to the rock etc.

quote:

---

Fossil record and lineage don't neccasarily jive, I don't think
They do.

---

Well, if many creatures were killed in the flood and fossilized, what would it have to do with their 'lineage'?

quote:

---

There was a supercontinent that included most of the land mass we see today.

---

Thank you. Now fit that within a framework of time only about 6000 years and you get an idea of the type of disaster the flood would have been!

quote:

---

But we can tell if there has been an inversion separate from the fact that the layers display non-conformity with other geologic columns.

---

So what caused the inversion so that the young rock sits atop older rock? You know you need millions of years to come up with a swallable story for that one!

Yes explain it all, one area at a time.

quote:

---

Go into detail. I would love to hear a few arguments that support your position instead criticizing evolution. Even if evolution is shown to be wrong, young earth creationism still has to be supported by the data.

---

'Even if evolution is wrong'. I like those words. OK lets say it is. Now, support the flood by data is the name of the game. First we have to know what the flood was like. Also we need to know what the pre flood world was like. Do you know these things?

WHAT DATA?
People keep asking. You keep not replying!

quote:

---

To be honest, I was thinking about the cosmos. Selective data being ignoring the world of evidence and witnesses for supernatural, and spiritual, such as spirits able to go faster than light-and assumptions like nothing can go faster than our light, and it was billions of years in the travelling etc.

---

This would be a better fit for the "Is It Science?" forum. If we both try we can keep on topic. If you start a new thread in another forum on what evidence science should entail I will contribute a few posts.

quote:

---

Well, if many creatures were killed in the flood and fossilized, what would it have to do with their 'lineage'?

---

That is exactly the point. If they were all killed in the flood dinosaurs, bunnies, and grass should all be in the same layer of sediment. Why aren't they? Why, instead, do the fossils and their order in the geologic column reflect evolutionry theories?

quote:

---

Now fit [the supercontinent] within a framework of time only about 6000 years and you get an idea of the type of disaster the flood would have been!

---

People have already done that. The energy released would have been enough to cauterize the earth 2 times over. No life would have survived, including that on the ark. The energy would have been enough to vaporize all of the flood waters. (edited to add: the calculations were in reference to the supercontinent breaking apart to their present positions during the flood and not spread over 6,000 years. But you have to admit that it is peculiar that as soon as man starts to measure the continents they are moving at a snails pace).

quote:

---

So what caused the inversion so that the young rock sits atop older rock? You know you need millions of years to come up with a swallable story for that one!

---

Tectonic movement of plates. The same mechanism causes uplift of mountains and the subduction of land that replenishes the magma deep in the earth. I fully realize that this explanation is insufficient, I will try and get more info for you later (I have to leave real soon). I will try to get back to you on this. Like I said before, my geology background isn't that great but I am pretty sure I can find the info you are looking for.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 06-25-2004 07:22 PM

quote:

---

Now, support the flood by data is the name of the game. First we have to know what the flood was like. Also we need to know what the pre flood world was like. Do you know these things?

---

But no one knows what it is like. All explanations that I have heard have been made up whole cloth. To find out what the supposed flood was like, you have to use evidence from reality, not dreamt up fantasies.

Older meaning (in the flood picture you want to support) settled out first. Drowned first? That can't be if the flood formed the deposits now can it? Maybe you now need to specify which layers are flood and which ones are not.If there are layers of sediment or volcanic flow that are horizontal or tipped uniformly together. If they are approximately planar (and not twisted and broken) the conclusion is that older ones are under younger ones (or that ones that settled first are under ones that settled later).Are we on the same page now? Please confirm?It would appear that you are arguing against geology without knowing jack squat about it? That couldn't be could it? Again, you seem to have a focus problem. We are not talking about the origin of life or, for the moment it's evolution. We are talking about the overall geology of Earth, the nature of the rocks and the fossils in them. Let's stick to that shall we? We'll all have fun with other things later. You're not making much progress on this one so far. Just as you say, the odds of the various layers and their fossils settling out of the upheaval of the flood in just this way are too unlikely. This degree of sorting needs a mechanism and you don't have one or haven't elucidated one as yet.

This has been responded to already so I won't go into it directly. However, what it raises to me is the astonishing possibility that you don't actualy don't grasp the issue at hand yet!!!I think maybe you should attempt to restate, in your own words, what the issue of this thread is. It appears that you haven't even begun to understand what it is that you are supposed to be explaining. That would, at least, help us understand why you are going off in all directionds and bringing up irrelevant things every few posts.