|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential Evidence for a Global Flood | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
After all, if the 'parent species' Darwin pondered as an alternative to all species having a common ancestor ... You keep being wrong about this. Darwin used the term "parent species" to refer to a species immediately ancestral to another species or variety, especially (though not exclusively) the wild ancestors of a domesticated variety. The existence of "parent species" is therefore not an alternative to universal common ancestry, but an inevitable consequence of it. The term is so self-explanatory that I hardly see how you could have made such a crass mistake; though I guess that being a creationist has a lot to do with it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Baumgartner has offered some evidence which appears to make sense. I suggest a reading and responses to questionable statements in it. The tried to radiocarbon date mineralized organic material from the Cretaceous? That's like trying to find out how old I am by sawing me in half and counting my growth rings. It is guaranteed to get the wrong result, because I am not a tree. And even using a method guaranteed to fail, they still got results several times older than their imaginary Young Earth ... at which point the unsubstantiated ad hoc excuses start. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Bumped for "Just being real".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
First I would point out how interesting I find it that most who reject a global flood, overlook the fact that fossils require an anoxic environment in which to even form. This is, of course, not true. That's what's required for soft-tissue preservation. Which is extremely rare.
And that this type of environment usually only occurs in nature, in rapid sedimentary deposit situations. Which of course only occur in "flood" conditions. That's an interesting use of the phrase "of course", but back in the real world we can see rapid sedimentary deposition without floods. And we invariably see it without global floods.
Secondly, there's often burrows preserved and fossilized that are oriented starting from lower strata and moving upward. These are like what you would expect had an animal been buried by the sediment and tried to dig its way out. They are very different from the normal type which are oriented in all directions. If you are trying to say that under normal conditions burrowing animals never burrow up or down, then you are wrong. If you are saying that there's a greater proportion of such burrows than there should be, then we need a couple of figures from you: (a) What proportion of burrows in the fossil record have a vertical component?(b) What should the proportion be, if geologists were right about geology? Please give references for (a) and show your working for (b).
A third thing to notice while looking at the geologic record, is that it consists mostly of "rocks" but very few paleo-soils. Normally, poorly consolidated rocks aren't considered to be made of ancient materials that have ever been actual soils. Evolutionary thinking in geology says that land surfaces supported an abundance of life for hundreds of millions of years. So where's all the paleo-soils in the record that supported that life? It's not there! If you are trying to say that there are too few paleosol deposits, I should like you to present your figures for: (a) How many there are.(b) How many there should be if geologists were right about geology. Please give references for (a) and show your working for (b).
Fourth, consider what we see evidence in the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon area. Uniformitarian geologists date this sandstone to be around 270 myrs old. It was believed to be an ancient desert. If you didn't know, the Coconino covers more than 100,000 square miles. However fossilized amphibians tracks have been found in the sandstone. This is evidence that it was laid down by water. Perhaps in Opposite World the tracks of land animals with, y'know, feet, are only deposited underwater. In the real world, not so much.
Fifth, we can further conclude that the Coconino was not laid down under a dry desert condition, by noticing that directly under it is a "blade edged" thin layer of Hermit shale. The shale had to have uplifted at least high enough to create a desert. But if that had occurred then normal erosion processes wouldn't have left the top of the layer so virtually flat as is observed today. The top of the shale exhibits no signs of erosion. How's that possible if it remained exposed to the surface for sand to begin to accumulate 10 myrs later? Sixth, these blade edged flat layers, such as the Hermit, completely diminishes the idea of long passages of time between deposits, (regardless of what index fossils are found in them). Contact layers between rock layer units show the same knife edged characteristics and are seen just about everywhere. There's really only two reasonable scenarios that explain these characteristics. Either continuous and rapid deposition took place with almost instant current shifts, or deposition after spaces of sheet erosion from rapidly flowing water at an equal depth over a huge area that had equally eroding sediment taking place in all areas. Either case would need the WWGF scenario described in the Bible. Your point is obscure, can you clarify it? It contains terms not to be found in geology textbooks, or at least not the ones I've read.
Seventh, consider the existence of polystrate fossils in coal beds for example, which are often separated by layers of lime stone. Each layer is usually said to be several million years old. But not to have taken several million years to form, a distinction which creationists seem unable to grasp, because they are idiots.
Eighth, consider how at the Green River Formation, many fossilized catfish have been found with skin and soft parts preserved. Many are even oriented to traverse through several laminations of shale deposits. The kind of deposits that Uniformitarians normally interpret as being representative of several season cycles of sediment. Or several days, depending on the circumstances under which they were laid down. By the way, weren't you pretending it was "millions of years" in the last paragraph? Yes, yes you were.
Ninth is the lack of bio-turbation between conforming layers of strata. If millions of years really took place between the deposits of conformable layers, why are their surfaces so scarce of millions of years of life? By that I mean things like burrows, root formations, etc... are mostly missing from the record. So now you're complaining that there aren't enough polystrate fossils? Seriously? Well, again, we need a couple of figures: (a) How many are there?(b) How many should there be if geologists were right about geology? Please give references for (a) and show your working for (b). Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My understanding is that it's because in normal flooding conditions like today, there is no rapid burial with a source of gentle blanketing sediments all mixed with cementing agents, without which trace fossils cannot be preserved. Ripples can only be preserved when covered by a different type of sediment. For example ripples in coarse sand were overlain by a finer silty sand and red oxidized mud. Multiple layers of ripples, and the variations observed in their alignments between the layers indicates they were laid down by sediment laying currents of varying strength and therefore producing the variation in particle sizes between layers that we observe. The typical local flood events just don't produce these kinds of features. I don't know which rocks you're discussing here, but the pattern of sedimentation you're describing sounds like flaser deposits, which can be observed forming today.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That sounds like a reasonable enough expectation. But don't go putting all your eggs into one basket my friend. The problem is that there is something wrong that needs to be addressed. During the mathematical process of evaluating the genetic markers in any population and extrapolating backwards to the date of the original parent group, they cannot account in the equation the great grandparent effect. What I mean by that is that in current calculations they use current time estimates for a "generation" and don't consider the fact that the life span in animals and people exiting the Ark were much longer than they are today. That means that several generations would have co-existed within a single procreation time frame and the genes from great great grandpa would be introduced back into the equation many times over. This would screw up the calculations dramatically and make it virtually impossible to accurately predict when any given species population actually "bottle necked." But the effect you're describing, if it existed, would, if anything, decrease genetic diversity. This means that if it threw off the calculations, it would do so by making the bottlenecking event, if anything, seem like it was after the flood. Even given your bit of adhoccery, then, we should expect normal methods, not taking your "grandfather effect" into account, to show in each species a bottleneck within the last ~4000 years. What you need is an unproven ad hoc argument showing that we shouldn't see any bottlenecking at all; whereas your actual unproven ad hoc argument, if it held, would exacerbate the bottlenecks.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
That means if you know of just one example that shows how normal flood conditions (not catastrophic events like a 4 or above VEI volcano) could produce fossilized surface ripples, then I'd love to here it. You don't even need "flood conditions" to produce ripples. Here's some fossilized tidal ripples:
And here's some unfossilized tidal ripples:
Here's some fossilized ladder ripples:
And here's some unfossilized ladder ripples (I can't hotlink this image, you'll have to click on my link.) Here's some fossilized interference ripples:
And here's some unfossilized interference ripples:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Very well then, I am quite fond of the polystrate fossils in coal beds, and the Green river catfish fossils. Perhaps you could expand on this. In what way do these localized phenomena suggest to you that the whole Earth was covered in water. Tress and aquatic life are, after all, being covered with water and with sediment today in various places, and you do not claim that we are now undergoing a global flood. Error 404 (Not Found)!!1Not a global flood. http://gallery.usgs.gov/...y_exposed_snags_2_w-_Dan_Daly.JPGStill not a global flood Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, as I believe most of the strata layers are. And yet we can see layers of sediment being laid down today, and we are not experiencing a global flood.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The only sites that seem to mention polystrate fossils are creationist sites. That's 'cos polystrate is a word creationists made up, not a term in real geology.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I would say that since coal beds and oil deposits have been shown not to require the millions of years of time originally thought needed to form, and that since the plant and animal debris needed to form them had to have been buried quickly, this in itself is a good indicator. Also as I said earlier, the polystrate fossils found in them are another good clue to the fact that they did not form slowly. How many times do you need this explaining to you? There is a difference between saying that something happened millions of years ago, and that it took millions of years to happen. These are two different claims. For example, look at the rock in the image below. We know exactly how it formed, because people were there to watch. It formed over a hundred years ago. And each doublet (pair of black and white layers) took a day to form. Do you see the difference? Each layer was formed in one day and was formed a hundred years ago. These are different claims about the chronology of the rock.
When you say the layers in which "polystrate" fossils are embedded did not take millions of years to form, you are in complete agreement with geologists, who say exactly the same thing. How do you get from complete, utter, unreserved agreement that geologists are right to your belief in the global flood they all say didn't happen?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Our clues are coal that we know formed from vegetation being covered "by something", and requiring a lot of pressure, and contains significant amounts of C14, and pulverized by hundreds of forests of pollystrate tree fossils that pierce through "strata" that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart. No they haven't. Stop making stuff up.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
d.p.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Many Geologists say that the strata layers of the geologic column are representative of millions of years of time. No-one, anywhere, ever, has claimed that a single distinct sedimentary layer in a sedimentary formation necessarily corresponds to millions of years of time.
Some of them do. A kilometer of unbedded chalk would necessarily take a long time to form. On the other hand, the distinct layers of a turbidite would take about half-an-hour. A doublet in a proglacial lake takes a single year. A lamina in aolian sand, thirty seconds.
In this discussion I will refer to them as uniformitarian geologists ... Don't you think it'll cause confusion if you refer to the people you've made up in your head by the same name that is sometimes given to real people who actually exist?
The question is, how can forests of trees, dinosaurs, fish and other organisms remain protruding from one layer of strata while waiting the enormously long periods of time for the other layers to eventually cover them and then to later fossilize? As every geologist in the world will tell you, they did not have to wait enormously long periods of time.
Are you going to suggest that in those areas where fossils cut through several layers of strata, that they were buried quickly, but in areas with the exact same rock and strata and no polystrate fossils are observed, each layer represents millions of years? No, because we are not the idiotic strawmen that you have constructed in your head.
Some of you have already agreed with me that the tree fossils demonstrate a rapid deposition of the strata. This tells me that the only point we are really seeming to be in dispute over is, if they pose a problem for uniformitarian geological thinking. And the answer is no, since uniformitarian geological thinking does not pose a problem for uniformitarian geological thinking, and is in fact completely consistent with uniformitarian geological thinking. --- Now, do you have any point to make about these fossils that contradicts anything whatsoever that geologists actually say? That's actually as in not in the fantasy world in your head. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Anecdotally, I have to say that in my 20+ years working as a geologist, I have never met one of these ‘types’ of geologist. It's very strange, isn't it? If geologists were like creationists, they'd begin their discourse by explaining that creationists believe that a dog cremated the world in six ways, they'd show at length how silly that proposition was, and then they'd sit down under the impression that they'd put forth an argument in favor of geology, a subject that they'd never mentioned.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024