News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Sorry about the emotive nature of the topic but it seems to be the usual style here.

Below is a post that I typed in 2007 and which was never satisfactorily replied to. I invite anyone here to address any of these points, with specific evidence. Please do not dismiss out of hand as it will not reflect favourably on your position; please also do not let links, videos or lists of quotes do all the talking for you. I would like to hear your own words.

Some problems with the YEC global flood model:

One of the biggest problems for flood geology is the sheer QUANTITY of biologically derived material buried in the earth. Coal and oil are only two kinds of biologically derived materials. If you add up the sheer mass of compressed material (that we know about) you quickly come to the conclusion that the surface of the earth is not large enough to accommodate all of those lifeforms at the same time. Do you know what limestone is made of?

The reason all of that fits into the earth now is because it is both compressed and it is buried in depth. As soon as you have to take into account that all of the things that comprise coal and oil had to at one point in time, at effectivly the same time, be alive and growing on the surface of the earth, the idea that they were all killed and deposited quickly is instantly falsified by the fact that there is simply not enough room.

Creationists also need to get their stories straight. In response to this, some creationists have said that oil is not biological in origin but rather that it somehow is created deep within the earth. This has also been falsified but it goes to show you that even some creationists realise that the quantity of material formed by biomass in the earth is a killer for flood geology.

There are other problems with flood geology, such as how large structures of evaporite minerals could make layers during the flood. Evaporites are types of rock created by evaporation. You can evaporate a whole lake of very "salty" water and get mere millimeters of salt or gypsum to accumulate. Some large evaporite layers are dozens of meters tall.

You could say that the flood receded and allowed time to evaporate before returning but that would not be consistent. Remember the Bible says that there was only one flood. There is also a problem considering the amount of time it would take to produce these layers in the earth that are then buried by even more layers that have different properties that take time that just simply cannot fit into a year time frame.

There is also genetic evidence -- or should I say lack thereof, for a global flood. If the Biblical Flood had happened, there would have been a bottleneck event in EVERY species of living thing and all pointing to exactly the same period; also, that bottleneck would be almost yesterday as gentic time goes.

Geneticists can see bottle neck events in some species, but they are all at different times and most are tens or hundreds of thousands of years in the past. The genetic information shows that there has not been a single unique bottleneck event affecting all species. Hence, no global flood that wiped out all but two of every "kind."

More evidence from geology:

Angular unconformities – Angular unconformities are where sediments are laid down in layers, then tilted and eroded, then new sediments are deposited on top. How does a global flood simultaneously deposit, tilt, and erode in the same exact place?

Radiometric dating – All common forms of radiometric dating, including C14, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Th-Pb, U-Pb, and fission track. The dates derived from these diverse methods, when properly interpreted rather than intentionally misapplied, show that all but the very most recent deposits in the geologic column are vastly older than the Biblical flood. Measures of cosmic ray bombardment show how long something like the surface of a glacier or rock face has been exposed to the air. Again, no evidence here that everything was covered by a global flood a few thousand years ago.

Fossil Sorting – The sorting of fossils in the geologic record is consistent with evolution and geology across all formations worldwide. There are basically no fossils of dinosaurs found with modern mammals, even when such dinosaurs could fly. There are no flowering plants in the Cambrian, no grasses, no mammals, and no birds. The overall sorting does not show any evidence consistent with a flood or settling in water.

Paleomagnetism – Because the Earth’s magnetic field has reversed polarity and has wandered over the globe in the past, certain igneous rocks show such preferred magnetic orientations when sufficiently cooled. By mapping these directions and reversals, which correlate with radioisotope dating and stratigraphy, it is easily shown that the vast majority of seafloor sediments, along with most volcanic rock, are way too old to have been deposited by any flood. In fact such measurements are one of the great evidences for plate tectonics, which alone invalidate a global flood.

Coprolites – Coprolites, which are fossilized turds, are preserved throughout the fossil record. How does a flood have animals constantly crapping in the midst of a flood after they are exterminated?

Detailed layering – How could a global flood create thousands of layers seen in several geologic formations, each of which requires a different depositional environment?

There are many more "silver-bullet" evidences that disprove a global flood. What I listed here are merely some of them. Can any creationists here explain any of them? Please stay on topic.

There are also the impossible logistics about the ark story itself, which would be interesting to discuss.

The information in your post is incorrect and obviously based on something you read in one of your textbooks or on a website.

Unfortunately, it's full of propaganda and disinformation in the form of vast assumptions.

Because there is so much blatantly incorrect information here that needs to be straightened out, I will be posting links to web pages and videos that will help the reader sort it all out (for those who care -- and there are many of them).



The vast assumption here is that it requires biologically-derived material. Knowing that this assumption is incorrect invalidates the remainder of your statement.


How Long Does It Take to Make Oil?



http://urlbam.com/ha/M002D

How is Oil Really Produced?




The information in these videos represents currently-observed processes and dissolves the foundation of your argument, completely.



The process you are referring to is sedimentation. This is an observed, reproducible physical process that is well-known today.

Your arguments are decades old. (Sorry)



There are two assumptions here that are incorrect.

First, the irregularities in dating methods (the noise induced in the output data when dealing with short time periods) obfuscates the bottleneck. You admitted yourself that it's almost like "yesterday" in geologic terms. Remember, dating methods don't have that kind of reproducible resolution.



Again, Linda, you are unable to separate the signal from the noise making their claims completely speculative. Knowing what you claim to know, you should realize this.



It's astonishing that you bring this up because this is in direct contradiction to previous arguments that you've made.

Here is the information you need to know to make the model work as it does in real life:


http://urlbam.com/ha/M002C (video)



We've already shown in previous arguments that this dating method is a joke and should not be used.

For more information about 5 year old shoes being dated as thousands of years old by radiometric dating, see this video:

http://urlbam.com/ha/K



This information is blatantly untrue. Even most modern evolutionists know this.

You also need to recognize that the geologic column is a myth. You should know by now that it is only consistent in about 20 places around the world, and these are the places that evolutionists focus on. Unfortunately, they exclude all other locations, and therefore this is a deliberate sin of omission.

This is not science. It is propaganda to desperately indoctrinate people into the evolution faith, for the profit of its promoters.



Again, this statement is untrue on several accounts.

First, magnetic field measurements do not correlate with radioisotope dating neither do they correlate with stratigraphy.

Again, you have done ZERO research on this subject and are only parroting websites that say things you like to hear.



The flaw here (again) is dating. By shifting dates, you can make it look as if anything happened at any time you wish.

You are having blind faith in your evolution-clergy... Not wise Linda.

Please, do your homework and take the time to read opposing scientific articles.

You could easily conclude that amalgam (mercury-based) dental fillings are safe if you limit yourself to the information from the ADA and AMA.

You have told me to open my mind (which is already open), yet you filter your reading material to that which pleases your own fundamentalist-evolutionist faith.



No there is not. In fact, when you do your homework, you will find overwhelming evidence for a global flood. Your statement is the result of you blindly believing what you are told. Not smart Linda.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FE8CB52F1968BF23



We've been through this before, but by all means, discuss away.


More Interesting Media

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=414AC28CD5B99160

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXH5lwMBNiE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx5nN6x-my0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL3kfDmHL5g


The beginning of this video shows the mentality of evolutionists who blindly believe what they are told:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhFzcgjhExI


Interesting information for unbelievers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF7AzxplsME

Some (though very little) oil in the earth probably formed abiogenically, and some oil can form quickly. Your vast, and incorrect, assumption is that therefore all oil formed quickly, and in the way described in your video. Some types of oil do take millions of years to form because of the geological processes at work.

Without the oil and coal, there is still a large biomass of carbonate rocks in the earth's crust. For example, the Livingstone Limestone in the Canadian Rockies contains at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates.

Glenn Morton cites data published by Hunt indicating that the carbon in the coal alone is 50 times that in the entire present biosphere. And the carbon in all oil deposits is 660 times that in the entire present biosphere. That in oil shales and other sedimentary rocks is 40,000 times that in the present biosphere.

It would be impossible for all that biomass to have accumulated in just a few thousand years, as YECs claim. It would also spell disaster for the earth's ability to regulate its climate, as this amount of available carbon in the biosphere dwarfs the amounts that are causing concern for climate change today.



This was your response to what I said in my previous post:


What I am referring to is a specific process of sedimentation that produces evaporite rock. This kind of rock forms when mineralised water dries up. The obvious question here is, why are there layers and layers of evaporites, some separated by other rock formations, when there was supposed to be a global flood happening?



Your vague reference to dating, above, seems to suggest that you are unaware that Genetic bottlenecks are not dated in the same way that rocks are. Scientists study genetic changes over generations and they also study the genetic variability within existing populations. You will see in the above link that there is no evidence of bottlenecks in species worldwide at the time of the supposed global flood.

Interestingly, studies on the human Y-chromosome also show that a global flood could not have happened as the Old Testament claims. If it were true, than all males would have received their Y-chromosome from Noah. The Y-chromosome only exists in males and is passed from father to son, so all of Noah's sons would have received his Y-chromosome. This means that all differences in the Y-chromosomes in modern human males would be mutational differences accumulated over the past 4,000 years or so. This should amount to very little variation. However, genetic studies show that in order to account for the genetic differences in human Y-chromosomes, you need a timespan of approximately 60,000 years. Similarly, studies on mitochondrial DNA (which travels down the female lineage) show that it has too much variation to support the idea of Eve living 6,000 years ago. There is ample evidence in human mitochondrial DNA for a bottleneck event in the early history of homo sapiens but in order to explain the subsequent genetic variation in human mitochondrial DNA requires 140,000 years of accumulated mutations.

In response to my question about angular unconformities, you simply linked me to the “Drama in the Rocks” video again. This video has nothing to do with angular unconformities; it (incorrectly) illustrates horizontal deposition in a coastal environment. What's more, we've discussed this video before. The video's claim that geologists are ignorant of the sedimentation processes it describes, or that they want to conceal their existence, would appear to be contradicted by the video I posted of the geology professor lecturing her class, with diagrams, about it. It's a Geology 101 topic, though the processes don't occur in quite the way that your video represents them. As I recall, your only response to my posts was to put more links to your video in different threads across the forum.



No we haven't. So you can show that you are not making things up, maybe you can provide a reference.



I will refrain from impulsively saying the words that come to mind after having been asked to watch this certain video by this certain person yet again. What I will say is that it is two and a half hours long, so if you feel it makes a relevant point you can put it in your own words.



There are a few places in the world where localised catastrophic flooding is clearly reflected in the fossil record, because the fossils are mixed up. However, this does not happen across the world or even consistently in the same geological layers. So you can show that you are not making things up, maybe you can provide a reference.



Same question as above. Anyone can make claims. Their validity is shown through evidence.



This site gives an abstract from a study where the scientists correlated data from these three dating methods and created a mathematical formula which, with input from these dating methods, will yield a probability curve for the age of a sedimentary layer (bold my emphasis):



Here are some more links to studies where these three dating methods, and occasionally others (such as cosmogenic dating) were used:

Paleomagnetic stratigraphy and radiometric dating of the pliocene volcanic rocks of Aegina, Greece

Correlation and paleomagnetism of glacial and loess-paleosol sequences on the West Siberian Plain

Stratigraphic implications of paleomagnetic data from Honduras

For those who are actually interested in the different methods scientists use to date rocks (which include many more than have been discussed here), you can find an accessible list here.



It has to be said, I am pretty underwhelmed so far.

Unless you are God that is.. ((( Smiles )))



God transcends all.
God created all of it & is the greatest scientific genius in the world.
More like Universe..
He goes beyond human comprehension.
Just because they haven't invented it yet doesn't mean it can't be invented.
Or created all at once..
We think in human terms God is not a human..
If God can create all of this the world birds bees flowers trees animals humans water air sun moon stars clouds lightning ect..
Mankind is not that advanced..
It could take millions billions of years for the human brain to catch up to God's mind..
It cannot just be preformed in a test tube or study God's not limited like that like we are.
For me..
Thats just another way of looking at it.
I know, this will just overwhelm you more but I just wanted to bring something else us Christians think about to the table.
That, God is not a limited human being.
And I can't stop not thinking in thoses terms as this is what I truely believe to be true.

Try To Stay Well
Lynn

I'm so sorry that this video is long, but this is what research is all about: Being willing to put in time doing actual work.

Videos like this are a starting point for research. They give you the information sources that others have found. Then it's up to you to continue and actually read the sources yourself. Then, if you're really ambitious (and who would doubt that you are ), you continue to deepen the research, uncovering additional information on the subject.

Yes Linda, it does take time, but the reward is well worth. it.

Hope you feel better.

How Long Does It Take to Make Oil?



http://urlbam.com/ha/M002D

How is Oil Really Produced?

Right, so in the three recent posts here, correct me if I'm wrong, no one has chosen to address any of the scientific evidence at hand.

It has been implied that miracles happen. While people are of course free to believe this, it sends science up a dead end because you cannot empirically investigate miraculous evidence. We could all have been created yesterday and had false memories implanted. Besides, some of the things we do see seem a little odd. For example, if the earth is young, why would God go to such lengths to make it appear old. Why would he also make sure there was no record of a global flood in the geologic column and instead create all evidence to point to there not having been a flood.

Russ has also chosen not to address any of my comments apart from the one where I refused to watch two and a half hours of . . . well, I said I'd resist the impulsive desire to express my opinion on the subject. I'm going to have to say that until Russ chooses to back up his wrongly-dated shoe claim with some evidence, it will remain firmly in the subjective arena. (I'm being as polite as I can here.)

I also made some specific comments about these oil videos, which have been ignored. Russ you just told me recently that creationists don't engage in diversionary tactics. Care to comment on where all the biomass came from, or how it's impossible that any of the earth's oil can be old?

Really Russ, if I simply pasted pages of material here myself with no commentary or indication that I even understood them, and you continued to do the same, wouldn't it be a ridiculous situation?

Since you started a new thread with this same pasted article, I will look at it there. I would prefer to stick to discussing evidence for the global flood (or lack thereof) here. Still avoiding a direct response to me I see.

So the slowness of the geological processes demonstrates the oil took a long time becoming oil, and the existence of the oil demonstrates that the processes were slow?

Why not "the speed of the geological processes demonstrates the oil took very little time becoming oil, and the existence of the oil demonstrates that the processes were swift"?

http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ub...ords=evaporite&Search=true#Post27785

And just how much of that argument-from-spam was on-topic?

Arguments from spam are bad enough, but to present one like that and complain when folks don't take the bait and cooperate with derailment of a thread? Shameless.

LOL !!!

These comments seem to indicate that you have paid no attention to what I actually said, or the links I gave. To repeat: some oil forms quickly, some forms slowly. The actual point I was making was not about how oil forms but about the amount of biomass contained within carboniferous deposits in the earth. It is impossible for all of it to have got there in just a few thousand years. Again to repeat, that much carbon being readily available in the biosphere would dwarf the amount that is currently causing concern for climate change.

I've repeated that post virtually word for word here. The comments are on topic for a discussion of a global flood.

One person claims that miracles explain them away.
One person posts the same old links to the same old videos.
Another tries to dismiss it all by calling it spam.

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. I would honestly like to engage in an intelligent discussion of the evidence at hand. It prevents me from believing that the global flood can be possible. I would respect any creationist who wanted to join in and explain why the evidence I have cited does not convince them. Just one of the topics is fine, if you'd like to narrow it down. Have a look at my OP or my second post and take your pick.

And how do you know it forms slowly? Or should I ask how you know the "geological processes" are slow? Sometimes it's hard to choose where to break into the circle with a question.

Carbon isn't causing concern - people are causing concern. Even so, carbon isn't a big deal even for them. Maybe you're assuming carbon = carbon dioxide? Well, coal is carbon. Graphite is carbon. Diamond is carbon. Carbon can combine with other elements to form many compounds. (And don't look now, but the global warming scare is just about over.)

Anyhow, are you just saying there's too much carbon for a few thousand years to account for, or are you saying there's so much it requires millions, billions, or zillions of years to account for it? Care to give some sort of ballpark figure?

Here is the link I posted earlier which explains some of the processes. Drilling for oil is what caused Glenn Morton and his compatriots to confront their young-earth beliefs, which were irreconcilable with the evidence they worked with every day. Here is another article which outlines oil-forming processes. The question isn't whether oil can form quickly, but whether all oil did form quickly, and the obvious answer is no.

As I said earlier, my actual point was the sheer logistical impossibility of all the world's biomass and carboniferous rock -- check the numbers out again in my OP -- forming in the space of a few thousand years. The earth would have had to be overrun.



You seem to think that carbon isn't a "concern" unless it's in the atmosphere. Well, how does it get there? You need to learn about the carbon cycle. Organic matter in soil is oxidised by the atmosphere, so yes the numbers of living and dead creatures on earth do make a difference (considering all those that ever lived existed all at once according to YECs, and in such numbers to produce the entire world's store of biomass and carboniferous rock -- by the way, that's just what exists now -- it excludes what has been eroded and subducted under the earth's crust over millions of years). Respiration from those same organisms in the biosphere also contributes to the carbon in the atmosphere. Check the numbers, they're pretty big.

That stuff is what, circa 1950? Earlier? Everyone's heard this before. Not a lick of evidence, just evostories.



You didn't answer my question.

It may have escaped your attention, but creation scientists and creationists in general do not believe and of that "present is the key to the past" stuff. We don't assume the world has never changed. Every indication, without exception, is that things grew larger, more rapidly, lived longer, etc. before the flood.

Once again I cannot help wondering if you read your own links.

You might like to paint a doomsday picture of a pre-flood world with carbon available for life to flourish, but if you want to make it stick, you should probably find out some of the things that were probably different.

If you'd like, I can try to find you some links discussing some of the models.

Now uniformatarianist models may have a good deal of difficulty accounting for carbon. Just where was all that carbon that's now part of the lithosphere hang out way back when? Adding it to present-day conditions, just as you intended to do with your criticism of written history, it doesn't matter if you push it back 500 million years, you may still get your doomsday. One wonders how well evomythology can make accommodations. All the carbon that is now in coal, oil, limestone, and chalk had to be available for intake by living things. Hmmm...

. . . from you, as to why this information is incorrect.

I have noticed that you consistently complain about science being "old." Some of these processes, like the formation of oil, have long been understood, and no new evidence has come to light to cause scientists to revise their models; yet people are still able to use these models to drill successfully for oil. How exactly does that invalidate them?

The question you feel I didn't answer was this:


Look again at the figures:


The obvious implication here is that even if the earth's biosphere were completely converted into oil, coal, and limestone each year, the earth would have to be far older than 6000 years. Try millions of years for multicellular life. You could get those large accumulations over that amount of time without there being impossible numbers of organisms in the biosphere. Look again at the carbon cycle. You are expecting the massive amounts of carbon produced by all of those organisms to be absorbed by the oceans and the soil. The system was in balance until humans recently began releasing more CO2 into the air. It's safe to say that if you're expecting all of the oil, coal, carboniferous rocks and fossils to have been produced in a few thousand years, the earth would have been overpopulated and there would have been a huge amount of carbon released into the atmosphere, even accounting for the amounts that would be "locked up."



There aren't any indications in the fossil record. Evidence please.

I notice that we have been focusing very narrowly on biomass. If this continues to be the case then people reading this might start to suspect that no one here is able to comment on the other pieces of evidence I cited in my first two posts.

A silly accusation. I don't either.

The point is that it's been discovered that both oil and coal can form quickly. The old reasoning that this takes a long time, so the geologic processes must also take time/be old doesn't fly. To workaround this by employing circular reasoning is bogus.

This oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form... Dizzy yet.

So "try millions of years" would be your answer?

My next question would be how Hunt arrived at the stated estimate, and how it compares to other estimates.
We'll see. You copy Linear's tactic of requesting evidence of things that are commonly known. I'm not inclined to devote a lot of time to this just now. I take it you've never seen fossils of giant dragonflies & such?

Do you mean all the rerun stuff we've already been over in other threads? Do you mean we need to get around to the entire argument-from spam?

Here's how arguments-from-spam work, folks. When you don't have a strong case, you throw together as many bogus things as you can come up with. The idea is to wear down the other side, making them invest 10 times as much time debunking each lie as it took to come up with it. Evolutionism itself is one giant argument from spam, probably the biggest ever assembled. The assumption they'd like you to make is that if any one part of it hasn't been debunked, the whole thing is true.

In reality, no chain can be stronger than its weakest link. If life doesn't come from non-life, it must've got here somehow... If critters don't change from one kind to another, the critters we see must've got here somehow... If even one single organ or system of organs couldn't evolve, that organ or system must've got here somehow... That's the last thing they want you remembering. They want you to be impressed (if you're predisposed to accept evolutionism) or intimidated(if you're predisposed to ask questions) by on "all the evidence". It's not a matter of "all the evidence". Evolutionism's trying to explain everything that exists, remember? It's their God-denying interpretation of all the evidence that's the issue.

As for this thread? Review the old threads, and see how much of this specimen hasn't already been discussed. The forum has a search feature, which will make the job easier. Those of us with functional memories can tick off half the list right off the bat. I could perhaps search myself, if anyone's interested. Post or PM me if you'd like some links but haven't time. Also scroll up & check out the links Russ has already provided, if you haven't done so already.

Here's a link for those who may come along later. Half of this discussion's taking place in another thread, and it may get to the point where it doesn't make so much sense for those reading only in part.

http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=52016&gonew=1#UNREAD

This is "old news."
This information is "50 years old."

We've known that the earth goes around the sun for several hundred years. I guess by your standard that's "old news" too, and therefore invalid.



Fallacy of composition

I've linked twice now to sites that explain how most oil forms slowly under the earth. Those processes by their very nature must take a long time. Oil travels through rocks with water, and the rates at which this happens are slow; in the case of pressurised shale, very slow. That isn't to say that some oil can't form quickly under other conditions. Please, just educate yourself about this.



Sure. Look here, at the table next to "carbon in the oceans." That is a lot of carboniferous sedimentary rock. You are claiming that all the organisms that formed all of those rocks existed on the earth in the space of a few thousand years. If that somehow makes sense to you then we can leave it at that and move on to discussing something else.



Fallacy of hasty generalisation

Logic doesn't follow that because dragonflies (and numerous other organisms) were larger in the past (bold emphasis mine),



Like I said, the fossil record does not support this. In the case of dragonflies, we also have fossils of dragonflies that are about the size of those today, or smaller. I think you are referring to one particular giant species that lived in the Carboniferous.

There are also fossils showing dwarfism having occurred. An example of this is when a population lives on an island and has to adapt to limited resources there. That is what scientists believe happened with homo floresiensis, though that is a topic for another thread.

I am waiting for you to back up your statements here with evidence.

You have a case of a specific occasion when obsolete ideas are known to be obsolete, and you spin this as "consistently complain". What's consistent in our discussions is your inaccurate portrayals.

As if... My record speaks for itself. You have junk - total junk for an argument, so you resort to bogus spin.

Telling evostories isn't the same thing as demonstrating truth therein. I can tell evostories - anyone can. Yet nobody can demonstrate them true.

Would you like me to link you to some more evostories?

About what? We all know the story. We're asking why we should believe it's true. Educate yourself on the difference sometime.

Present another link under false pretenses, and you'll be PMing Russ whining about where it went.

Unless Michael Pidwirny is this Hunt fellow's pen name, in which case you need to explain that for those of us who don't know him personally.

I didn't say "show me a random evohype link". I asked how Hunt arrived at his estimate. If you prefer to dodge, just dodge. Better yet, don't respond. Either way, don't be rude and try to waste everyone's time.

Show you evidence, when you already know? I've better things to do. So does anybody. Those who taunt others with their own disingenuousness can do their own research. You really should consider just what such an attitude indicates sometime.

In case your mirror's broken, here's what it looks like:


Ha ha! Ha ha! You can't make me thi-ink
You can't make me open my eyes
Ha ha! Ha ha! You're just wasting ti-ime
I still pretend to believe the lies

Show's just boring when it's not funny.

The only place they are obsolete is in your head. Your only response to my links and comments about the slow formation of oil has been dismissal.

When people have a debate, they add weight to their arguments with evidence. I could sit here and say that the earth is flat. Why should I expect anyone to believe me if I have no evidence for this, yet there is plenty of evidence to the contrary?



Yet you have not addressed the evidence itself and you have offered zero for your own perspective.



Your original request was this (bold emphasis mine):


I linked you to another estimate, which tallies well with Hunt's. All you have to do is Google for the amounts of biomass contained in coal, oil and limestone. They are big numbers. That was my point, which you are not engaging with.



So do I, if all you intend to do is type unsubstantiated assertions and arguments from incredulity. None of this will move the discussion forward.



That seems abundantly clear.

Linda, you continue to rely on old information which is largely proved incorrect and is based on circular reasoning and huge assumptions.

This is not good science. It is vital to maintain objectivity when dealing with scientific matters.

Despite my view on an old Earth (I am not a young-Earth creationist), I do realize that your views don't hold water. I don't agree with young-Earth creationists, but I do agree with them that there is indeed evidence for a young Earth, but it is because of a "renewed" creation.

You can find more information about that here:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0020

Now, I'm going to post a few links here that thoroughly display the enormous assumptions that your belief system holds. The read will have to make up their own mind, but for those who can properly discern between scientific objectivity and flattering-emotionalism, the conclusion of the matter is quite clear.

Finally, here is a link to my own article debunking the talk origins claims of a fossil record. As you will see, they do quite a good job promoting their religion using false claims, redefining words, and making enormous assumptions:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002A

Now the other links. Please remember to maintain an open mind while analyzing this information "critically".

Fingerprints of Creation
http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/fingerprints_of_creation.html

Quotes by Evolutionary Scientists Against Evolution
http://www.warneveryone.com/evolution_scientists_quotes.htm

"It flys in the face of ... what we think we know..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC6WNDSL6uw

Whoops! A Living "Index" Fossil!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbLRjqChhLw

What would you do if I proposed epicycles? Without evidence - just repeating the same old stuff and claiming it has to be true because I can link to it right there in black and white.

It almost sounds like you understand the purpose of evidence. But clearly you don't understand what evidence is. Evolutionist conclusions aren't evidence.

There is no evidence to discuss. There is oil. It is found in the ground. This doesn't prove it took millions of years to form.

Oh. I need to google because you don't know and don't care how Hunt got his figures.

As far as matching the figures you claim Glenn Morton claims Hunt published, that table isn't in the same ballpark. Once again, you don't read your own sources.

"carbon in the coal alone is 50 times that in the entire present biosphere"

The table gives 578 for just the carbon in the atmosphere (that's the smaller estimate assigned to the year 1700). 10 x 578 = 5780 Ten ain't fifty.

The table lists "Fossil Fuel Deposits" at 4000. Apparently that figure isn't restricted to coal alone, but at this point there's little point continuing to just compare the numbers reported.

The same source also says
"Despite the scientific certainty that the global carbon cycle is governed by the law of conservation, scientists are not able to “balance” the storages and flows. That is, summing the best estimates for the flows of carbon to and from the atmosphere indicates that there is less carbon in the atmosphere than expected. During the 1990’s, the atmosphere was missing about 3 petagrams (3 billion metric tons) of carbon per year. This missing carbon is associated with an unknown carbon sink. "

Requiring evidence isn't arguing from incredulity. I freely admit I have no faith in evolutionism. It is nothing but a set of totally unsubstantiated assertions, at best, and frequently outright falsehood.

John Tyndall, in his Belfast Address of 1874, came right out and said

If you want to make progress, present something more than stories. Present evidence, and give reasons why folks should accept your favoured interpretations thereof. The mere existence of evolutionist conclusions doesn't prove anything.

Your niggling about figures of carbon for the biosphere is a red herring. The topic is evidence for a global flood and to state my original point for at least the third time, any figures you look up for the amount of carbon contained in rocks are very, very big. Therefore for it all to have got there in the space of 6,000 years is preposterous -- the earth would have been overpopulated.



The biosphere consists of living plants and animals. The Encyclopedia of Earth link does not give a specific figure for this, but this site does: 560 billion tons. So you're looking at a little less than 10 times the amount of this in fossil fuel deposits, part of which is coal.

My source for this information is here: How Good are those Young Earth Arguments?

The confusion here is probably that someone named Sonleitner watched a creationist video and wrote what appears to be a software programme titled "An Evolutionist goes to the creationist movies". In this he cites a creationist writer called Morton -- possibly Glenn while he was still a YEC -- who cites information from someone called Hunt. I've dug a little deeper and I think this is John M. Hunt, a late geochemist with a specialism in petroleum. His qualifications and experience suggest that his figures would not be completely erroneous but I don't know what his methods or parameters were and unfortunately I don't have access to his research. From now on I will make sure I don't give second-party links.

Again though, this is making complex what is a very simple issue: how did all that biomass get into all that rock in 6,000 years? A large part of my country is built on limestone -- you do know where limestone comes from? But I did say that if this somehow makes sense to you, we can move on. I cited a number of other reasons why the flood cannot have occurred, none of which have been discussed.



This seems to be off topic but it's simple to address. The table cites 766 billion tons of carbon in the atmosphere. It says that's 3 billion less than models predict, so there must be a carbon sink to account for the 3 billion. (Note that this is about 1/255th of the carbon in the atmosphere.) It then goes on to give a number of reasonable hypotheses. To be honest I don't know what your point was here, but again it has nothing to do with impossible amounts of biomass accumulating over 6,000 years.

The rest of your post simply shows that you refuse to look at my links or educate yourself about the topics under discussion. Your tactic seems to be simple dismissal of decades of scientific research with no attempt to understand it. When you decide to change this pattern and respond in a more direct and educated way to my initial posts, I'll be happy to carry on the conversation.

Astoundingly, in your regurgitation of outdated "research", you are completely ignoring the facts and information that I presented.

You are doing the same thing that you are accusing me of doing.

This is not right Linda. How do you expect to maintain an open mind (which you said is so important) when you refuse to look at evidence that contradicts your personal beliefs?

Please, take a little time and check out the links and evidence that I provided in my previous posts.

Thanks!

We're discussing one small point: that there would have been so many living things on the earth in the space of 6,000 years that the earth cannot be that young -- or in the light of your own beliefs, life on earth cannot be that young either.

If the "information" you presented is the links a few posts up, they are off topic. If you would like to join the discussion about the evidence for a flood you are welcome to, provided that you can put some of it in your own words. Debating via exclusive link-posting is pointless because the people posting the links are under no obligation to understand what it is they are posting.

I wrote to Glenn Morton about the numbers from John Hunt -- he who estimated that there is 50 times more carbon in coal than in the present biosphere. Here is what he said:



The link I gave with the table that said 4 trillion tons was labeled "fossil fuel deposits." Those would be the quantities of recoverable coal and oil that could be used for fuel -- a number that would be important to people for obvious reasons, hence the numerous similar estimates for this. The rest of the carbon in the rocks, unusable, would not be of so much interest. As I suspected, it's a matter of knowing exactly what the numbers are referring to. Glenn and Hunt are both petroleum geologists so they have expertise in this area.

Note that I'm willing to admit when there's an apparent discrepancy in my sources, and that I check it out. Denial is unscientific.

I enjoy your continued expressions of disgust for religious rules while watching you create own list of rules, namely your terms for debate:

"If you would like to join the discussion about the evidence for a flood you are welcome to, provided that you can:

- put some of it in your own words

- Debating via exclusive link-posting is pointless because the people posting the links are under no obligation to understand what it is they are posting

I will begin by exposing the flaws in your logic.

Debating using external resources is vital and necessary because we rely on external information because we don't produce our own information (other then our own observations - science by definition) because we don't have the time, tools, or resources to attain such.

External links are indeed necessary.

Also, we have to revisit the purpose of these debates.

They are public debates?

Why?

Because they are meant to be viewed by others.

They are, therefore, open to public scrutiny, by design.

Including external links enables others to examine the sources of information so they can make a judgement as to their credibility.

This freedom to make personal judgments, whether they are medical, religious, or otherwise, is a fundamental right demonstrated by the original laws of the United States based on English Common Law based on Biblical Law.

Ironically, the very belief system you defend -- evolution -- is being used to destroy the very freedoms under which you exercise the right to speak at all -- that being, Biblical Law.

A fundamental irony indeed.



Your entire premise is based on the assumption that oil came from once-living things.

It must be pointed out that this assumption has been disproved by the videos I previously posted.

You seem to be taking a rather conventional narrow-minded approach to this subject, and basing your conclusions on outdated and disproved information.



You often create your own definitions. This is no exception.

You state that denial is unscientific.

If you're speaking of the denial of the validity of your sources, you must admit this is a very narrow-minded approach. You leave no room for new discoveries (which I have provided), but rather, you stick to invalidated information that supports your personal bias.

This is most unscientific.

I would advise you to take your own advice: Open your mind.

As painful and uncomfortable as it is for you, if you wish to approach intellectual integrity, it is important to view, read, and study opposing viewpoints and be willing to consider the validity of new discoveries and information.

For your convenience, I am again making these valuable resources available to you again.


How Long Does It Take to Make Oil?



http://urlbam.com/ha/M002D

How is Oil Really Produced?




http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FE8CB52F1968BF23

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=414AC28CD5B99160

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXH5lwMBNiE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx5nN6x-my0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL3kfDmHL5g

The beginning of this video shows the mentality of evolutionists who blindly believe what they are told:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhFzcgjhExI


Interesting information for unbelievers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF7AzxplsME

My words were, "debating via exclusive link-posting is pointless because people posting the links are under no obligation to understand what it is they are posting." The idea is that you state what it is you are talking about and provide some evidence. Clearly that is where it is appropriate to cite an external source.

If you think that this sort of debating -- the proper sort -- is going to expose the fact that there's a lot you don't know, you have two choices: a.) Go and learn. b.) Don't debate about things you don't understand.

If you want people to watch your videos, there are plenty of places for you to post them. The problem is that you let them do the talking for you and when someone posts information that shows them to be wrong, as I have done here about oil, you don't read it (as apparently you have not done) or you don't bother trying to engage with it, and instead just post the same video again and again. Other comments you made in your post also suggest that you have not carefully read the rest of the thread. Please do so if you want to continue discussing here, as I have already repeated myself enough times with CTD, it's getting rather silly.

By the way, talking about oil is a great big whalloping red herring. This thread is about the flood and I've restated my point enough about biomass that it should be clear now. Do you not have anything else to say about evidence for the flood? I listed quite a few things in my first two posts.

You are -- again -- making an enormous assumption.

The fact that someone posts a link to another website does not infer that they do not understand the content of the link.

This is a vast assumption.



I understand a lot about this subject, and my long history of debate on this subject proves that.

I simply believe in freedom and good time management, and if someone has already made my point for me, why should I rewrite it for you.

I'm not going to waste my time.

Those who are interested in learning will take the time to follow the links and read the articles and will learn.

I say, "Good for them".



You are again making incorrect assumptions.

Additionally, you are using crafty political word-tactics by slipping in the phrase "as I have done here".

Actually, you haven't. You have simply copied concepts from others. An activity that you continually criticize me for. -- Another irony.

I have engaged with it and even said that I believe that people who take the time to read the justification for your figures will see that they -- like most of the evolution faith -- is based on enormous assumptions and in many cases, fabrications.

This is the established history of the evolution religion.

I give people the credit to the have the ability to make their own decisions about what they believe based on the credibility of the evidence, and as I have stated over and over, the information you post is not credible. It is -- as the talk origins article I debunked ( http://urlbam.com/ha/M002A ) -- based on assumptions and is designed to look intelligent to the unperceptive reader.



I do this because I am rebutting your posts, which simply regurgitate the same assumptive arguments.

That what a rebuttal does.



And yet you fail to tell me which comments.



The biomass argument is a fraud. It is based on outdated assumptions and it so out of context in relation to the information in the videos that I posted.

This is what evolution continues to do in order to desperately attempt to maintain control of the masses. They reuse old information for as long as they can.

This is not science and it has no integrity.

You should realize that the figures in your regurgitated article are based on inflated, overblown, out-of-context numbers.

Business as usual.

Comments like this are what cause me to believe that you have not carefully read the rest of the thread. Look at any source for the amount of carbon in rocks. Trillions of tons. Those who claim that life on earth has only existed for 6,000 years can't explain how all those organisms could be living on earth in such a short space of time with appropriate resources and habitats. There are specific organisms I could discuss whose life processes preclude this (such as coccolithophores), but I'm keeping it simple here. For the third time, though, if this does not perturb you, we can move on to discussing another piece of evidence for or against the flood. You and CTD are constantly avoiding this here and the whole discussion of oil in this topic is a red herring.

You also do not seem to understand why a proper debate consists of stating your point in your own words (to show you understand what you are talking about) and backing it up with evidence. You seem to think that posting a video over and over, regardless of what anyone says, is OK. I'm going to draw a conclusion from this: that you don't understand what your own videos are purporting to talk about and you don't know enough about the science to discuss it. If you believe that I am wrong then prove it. If you would prefer to dismiss everything I have said here (which is the likely outcome) and continue simply posting video links, then I guess we'll all just have to continue to assume that you don't understand them well enough to be able to discuss them.

I think I came off sounding rather blunt there without meaning to. What's more, you can't be expected to understand a lot of what these videos are trying to address because if you did, you'd see the inaccuracies in them. Still, I don't understand why you cannot take one of their arguments and just present it here for discussion. It would be easy for you to do. Is it because you're afraid it might be wrong? If not then go on, let's have a reason why, according to Hovind (or anyone else), the global flood is a fact.

I am not afraid Linda. I am simply making the most efficient use of time.

I trust and leave it up to the onlookers to see the credibility of the information that I present.

The unfortunately condition that we live in today is that scientific fraud is rampant. Having worked in the herb-research industry for 12 years now, I have seen how pharmaceutical companies use global media to falsify studies and misrepresent information from legitimate studies.

Of course, they do this to discredit the scientific studies that actually support the effectiveness of herbs and alternative therapies because they are attempting to protect their profits.

Unfortunately, they have no consciences and will, cheat, lie, steal, and even murder to protect their profits.

Unfortunately, this is the world we live in today Linda.

Sadly, this disinformation is commonplace today, and fear has nothing to do with the reason I don't reprint all of my supporting evidence.

If I did, you would say I'm regurgitating information. If I don't you say that I'm too afraid or don't understand the information.

Not only are you dead wrong about this, you are supporting a belief system that is destroying the societies of the world. And of course, if you understand the masonic decree of achieving order out of chaos, you will better understand why creating chaos in cultures is currently the focus of their agenda; An agenda you are unknowingly supporting.


"Delicate Arch - UtahOur world is completely covered in monumental flood sediments such as those visible in the walls of the Grand Canyon, or in the photograph at right taken in Utah. According to Genesis 6-8 and the Biblical chronology, approximately 4500 years ago there was a global flood that destroyed all terrestrial life on earth, except for those which were stored on the ark by Noah and his family. It is therefore the basic assumption of most Biblical creationists that the stratified sedimentary layers known as the geological column have been misinterpreted by modern science, and are instead a rather obvious testament of this worldwide catastrophe."

http://www.nwcreation.net/geologyflood.html


http://creationwiki.org/Global_flood


http://globalfloodmap.org/

Take care.

And in all the time it took you to type that . . . you could have typed a few sentences stating a claim about the global flood, which rather proves my point.

Those sites you linked to are full of nonsense that has been refuted elsewhere. I'm not going to spend all day doing it myself with whole web pages -- maybe that's your strategy? Kill 'em with links, they'll never keep up.

I could do the same: avoid talking about the topic myself and simply post links for people to look at. Talk Origins is but one of many. And the evolutionists here would do that (though they will already have been there, or be familiar with much of what it says). Would you go there, or to any other scientific site I posted a link to, and have a serious look? No -- you would simply say it's all lies. So I need to go back to stating a specific point and backing it up with evidence to show that it isn't a lie. That is the step you seem not to want to take.

So I'm making a formal challenge. Either choose one of the points I made in my first two posts here, or state a specific reason why you think there must have been a global flood. If you don't, I will formally consider you avoidant of information which is inconvenient for your view of reality. To be fair, everyone has a tendency to do this, it's called cognitive dissonance. Some people do eventually manage to reconcile the facts with their beliefs and achieve a synthesis but it can be difficult and frightening; some people never get there.

You mean your claims that I am unknowledgeable and afraid?

No it doesn't.

And this is that heart of the matter. If you draw the conclusions that I am afraid and unknowledgeable because of my responses to you, it is no wonder you come to the conclusions about evolution that you do.

There is no deductive reasoning going on here.



So, in other words, you're not going to do the very thing that you fault me for not doing. Hmmm...



My strategy is truth, and unfortunately, it takes a lot longer to build a building that it does to destroy it.

Likewise, dispelling the myths that you parrot takes times and effort, and since others have already done it effectively, I don't waste time doing it again.

Like I've said before, if I make long posts, I'm doing something wrong. If I just put links to good responses, I'm doing something wrong.

Your world is one of many unfair rules and restrictions.



I can't tell you how much I am laughing.

You will consider whatever you want whenever you want. History has shown that no degree of logic will stop you from that.


So, are you actually claiming that there is no evidence for a global flood?

Is this what you actually believe?

A non sequitur. I think a lot of rational people reading this would come to the same conclusions as me about your "debate strategies."



I do not, and never have, expected you to refute whole web pages or websites. I tried your tactic of pasting someone else's response to an article in the Geologic Column thread but eventually had to prove that I understood it myself and could refute it. Your side expect that from me, apparently without feeling obliged to do the same yourself.

This discussion is going nowhere. I'm taking my daughter to the cinema and at some point I will put up some more points about the global flood or lack thereof. Since no one wants to deal with the information I've already posted, I'll move on to the story of Noah and the ark.

Oooh. Cool sounding word.

Actually Linda, it's true. When people cannot draw correct simple conclusions, they typically cannot draw accurate complex ones.

Simple, eh?



All I expect is intelligence and the ability to discern.

Unfortunately, your beliefs are inconsistent and chosen according to your emotional whims (reincarnation, spiritism, etc.).

Your decisions to have faith in evolution demonstrate the same procedure for choosing a faith in these other things: Pick and choose.

I've stated my position about these videos. Obviously you've taken none of it on board. I might be willing to sit through 10 minutes but not an entire hour. And I can guess that you have no intention of telling me anything about the video and would be most pleased if I neither watched it nor responded to it.

In that case I will carry on as I planned, once I get some material together; I will also wait and see if anyone else wants to talk on this topic, though I'm not holding my breath.

Then, just like linear, you desire to ignore the evidence because it's not presented on your narrow-minded terms.

I prefer to approach life with humility recognizing that I did not make myself.

Nothing can help you Linda.

Just make sure you know enough not to take the mark when it comes:

|| ||| | ||| || | || | ||| ||||| || ||

Believe whatever you want (who can change you).

I would suggest not neglecting the Bible. Neglecting it would be the biggest mistake of your life.

Time is short.

[sarcasm]"When all else fails, resort to threats or promises of everlasting torment" {Supporting Creationism; Section 3.1.2} [/sarcasm]

Telling the truth is always an act of love.

I do make it tough love sometimes, but that's only because I want you to see yourself in the mirror.


Do you need a hug?

Well since there are no flood claims of substance here (nor do any appear to be forthcoming), I took the time to watch the Surtees video above and respond to it. I'm still asking myself why exactly, but I guess it's because a) no one has seriously challenged anything I've said here so far and I obviously need to move things along; b) so I can show that my objection to being expected to refute entire videos is not due to an inability to do so; and c) it's fun to use my brain and learn things. Would that the same could be said for Surtees, who is obviously lacking some basic science education.

So, Surtees accepts that the geologic column exists. He says “that more or less reflects reality . . . the empirical evidence is there.” He also accepts that the oldest layers are at the bottom and the youngest at the top. His explanation of how this ties in with a global flood and young earth is one I haven't heard before; at least he can be given a little credit for realising that there are problems with the standard YEC model, but his personal model has similar problems.

He says that the layers in the geologic column show that fossils of the “rapid breeders” are on bottom layers because their numbers would have immediately been more numerous after coming off the ark, hence more chance of them being fossilised. He puts the flood layer at the Precambrian-Cambrian border.

Unfortunately for Surtees, all this reflects is wishful thinking, ignorance of basic science, and an unwillingness to check out his hypotheses.

Take this “rapid breeders” nonsense. Some amphibians are slow breeders (look up salamanders) and some mammals are rapid breeders (look up mice). Yet we know from the fossil record that amphibians evolved before mammals. He's really grasping at straws here. I won't even go into his weird ideas about animals magically shrinking and their reproduction being put on hold while on the ark.

There are also major problems with pinning a global flood layer to the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary. You're really looking at the Ediacaran here, which is the period immediately before the Cambrian. How do you reconcile a global flood layer with:

Death Valley, California – vertical burrowing by an ancient animal, treptichnus pedum, and arthropod scratch marks. They were doing this during a flood, and the evidence was preserved?

Hewitt's Cove, Massachusetts – rhythmites (varves) – formed of many alternating layers of finer or coarser silt or clay. Such layers cannot be deposited by turbulent water.

Browns Hole, Utah – aeolian (wind-deposited) sandstone with wind ripples.

To add to this, you'd expect a turbulent global flood to deposit a large sedimentary layer across the world. It doesn't exist in the Ediacaran or anywhere else, which is no doubt the reason why most YECs refuse to say where they think the layer must be.

Another very obvious problem with this model is the fact that the flood is supposed to have killed all land life on earth apart from those in the ark. Where are the fossils? The fossils we see are sorted in the geologic column, with trilobites at the bottom, then dinosaurs, then humans. Yet we find none of these in Ediacaran layers. What's more, in the layers above, they are sorted in a specific order around the world (not jumbled up or hydrologically sorted as they would have been in a flood). I've talked before here about animals such as horses and whales, for which we have more or less complete fossil records, and asked why, if they did not evolve, we see something in the fossil record that goes like this: a modern-looking horse at the top, then a slightly different horse in layers underneath, then a slightly different one underneath, until you get to an ancestor which is quite different from the modern horse, and which itself has a record of having evolved. It's clear that Surtees' ideas are not going to hold water, so to speak.

Another glaring error is his dismissal of radiometric dating. He gives two examples and says they disprove all radiometric dating, which is nonsense. I was able to find who came up with the dates for the Uinkaret Plateau lava flows in the Grand Canyon which say the lava flows are older than the canyon itself: it was Steve Austin. He made a basic error in taking his 5 samples from different lava flows in the formation, when he would have known full well that the samples need to come from isotopically homogenous (with respect to each other) materials. His dates actually tell us the time since his samples were last homogenised with respect to each other: a mantle age. This is the same person who dated recent Mount St. Helens lava flows with an inappropriate method for the type of formation, then declared radiometric dating methods invalid. In my book, being deliberately deceptive is worse than being ignorant. Surtees probably doesn't know who Austin is, doesn't care where this information came from, and thinks it proves his point when really all it shows is that he doesn't understand what he is talking about.

Some other points of note . . .

Creationists seem to like to categorise geologists as being “uniformitarians” – it's a classic strawman. Modern geologists are well aware that catastrophic events occur now and in the past, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, localised floods, meteorite impacts, and landslides. Yet accepting these does not mean that there are not also rock-forming processes that must by their nature be slow (like we discussed about the formation of oil). For example, blueschist forms as basalt in rift zones as part of new oceanic crust, then travels underneath the ocean (this is plate tectonics and it is a slow process) until it reaches a subduction zone. As it travels 15-30 km underground, it is metamorphosed by high pressures into blueschist. It then travels by a variety of means back to the surface, usually as part of mountain belts. This is not a rapid or catastrophic process.

Some truly amazing stupidity to add to this:

Horses would be a “kind” on the ark, which would include “things like zebras.” Current understanding is that zebras diverged from proto-horses 4 million years ago. Surtees is telling us that this hyper-evolution and speciation took place over a few thousand years, yet at the same time he denies that evolution happens.

“Pre-flood dinosaurs were small and vegetarians.” Not because this is what we see in the fossil record (it isn't), but because these are the logical contortions you have to do when “the Bible says so.”

Extinct animals got that way not because “they were primitive,” but because “they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.” This is just bizarre. “Primitive” and “Non-primitive” are not scientific categories. He also does not explain what he means by “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” He's not going to be publishing in scientific journals any time soon. I wonder if he even understands the basics about ToE and natural selection if he's saying things like this.

“Formation of fossils requires rapid deposition.” He attempts to back up this claim by talking about Mesozoic rocks in Kansas. The rocks are a kilometer thick and cover a time period of about 180 million years. He assumes, averaging things out, that this means 1mm was added every 180 years, and then wonders how carcasses could form fossils instead of decaying. What he's actually proved is the depth of his ignorance of geography and a general lack of common sense. There are areas today where sediment is not being deposited at all, such as the Canadian Shield. Layers of the geologic column have been completely eroded in some areas – that's how we get sedimentary rock. So no, averaging it out won't work here. What's more, he has no understanding of how fossils actually form. In deep anoxic waters, such as those where varves form, the decay process slows dramatically. That's how we get peat bog bodies.

Moving on, he says the half-lives of isotopic elements are billions of years, so radiometric dating is not appropriate for samples less than many millions of years old. Of course it would have been easy to check this. You can use the uranium series for dating younger rocks, for example; this is done by chemically isolating the sample from the uranium source and dating the daughter elements: Uranium-234 has a half-life of 248,000 years and Thorium-230 has a half-life of 75,400 years. (This can also be used to date animal and human bones and teeth.) Other dating methods include cosmogenic; and information from tree rings (dendochronology), ice cores and varves. RAZD presented evidence for the correlation of these methods in a past thread, A Well Aged Earth, and I've recently presented evidence for the correlation of methods for older rocks in the Geologic Column thread.

In a nutshell (or case, more like): this guy has got it wrong. Why not learn some real science. It doesn't have to contradict belief in the Bible; there are Christian sites out there that explain this. You could have a look here for example:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Creationists actually pioneered the concept of a "geologic column". It was found that it couldn't be reconciled with reality and abandoned. Then evolutionists came along and snapped it up.

Creationists on the eastern side of the Atlantic still tend to believe a little too much of what they're taught without critically examining it. But they're coming along, and making very good progress in many areas.

You're a hoot. You can't even for one solid minute take a look at a model on its own merit. Nothing "evolved" according to any interpretation of the evidence which admits the flood.

I doubt his model includes magic either, although I can't watch videos at this time.

Coming from you, that is very funny.

Care to explain why you disagree with any of the evidence in my previous post? With evidence of your own? Watching the video isn't necessary because most of this is general YEC and flood stuff.

The first sentence is correct and the rest is bullpuckey. There is a thread for discussion of the geologic column; why not read the article linked below:

A layman's explanation of the geologic column

Again, you continue to regurgitate the same claims over and over.



This is so dishonest.

I'm not an young-Earth creationist, yet, I recognize that there is clear evidence for a global flood.

Your claims continue to be fundamentally flawed in that you assume that deeper layers are older. We know this is not true based on the new models, clearly demonstrated in this video:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002C

This new information invalidates your entire argument. Why you continue basing your claims on outdated myths is an act we will continue to ponder.


Just keep in mind that in just a few years, you will be asked to put a tattoo on your right hand or forehead.

The Bible predicted this centuries ago and said that those who accept this "mark" will not enjoy a "happy" afterlife.

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:"
(Revelation 14:9-10)

You continue to reject the Bible without having studied it. This is not wise Linda.

The video you linked to in your post is that "Drama in the Rocks" yet again. And yet again, I showed you why the information in this video is incorrect.

I also showed you in the Geologic Column thread why Hovind's scientific claims are unreliable, and I very much doubt that anything in the videos above addresses the specific information I've posted there or here.

You continually ignore the information I present. Almost none of the information in this thread which shows the impossibility of a global flood has been addressed, and I have written two detailed posts.

You keep posting the same videos apparently without concern that they contain deceptive or completely false claims about real scientific processes. I've shown you how the Surtees video is wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if you kept posing it anyway.

You are uninterested in backing up your own claims and the best you can seem to do is call me a liar a dozen different ways.

Maybe you should stop and think about what this shows about your position.

Here is your final comment from the previous discussion of your favourite video. For those reading, it may be helpful to start with the link I gave in my post above.



Russ,

This video is talking about "Walther's Law." It describes lateral sedimentation processes during marine regressions and transgressions (shoreline changes as water levels fall or rise). Your video misrepresents what it looks like however. Look at the diagrams it shows you: does common sense tell you that sand and silt will deposit themselves at such a steep angle to the shore without slumping away? What it also doesn't tell you is that scientists understand how different materials precipitate out of water depending on the conditions and the depth.

This is a real representation of Walther's Law. Note the angle of deposition, and the ordering of materials. How are such layers dated? The oldest are at the bottom and the youngest are at the top. As I've told you, transgressions and regressions are well studied, and you can Google Walther's Law to see for yourself that this poses no hinderance to stratigraphy.



This type of layering only happens in a certain environment. It's possible that early geologists misinterpreted such layers, but Walther's Law has been understood for some time and an educated geologist will know how to interpret such an environment. What's more, you've left dating methods out of the equation. Absolute dating methods could have disproved the relationships that had been inferred from the geologic column, but instead those relationships were confirmed.



You repeat these assertions over and over; you've done it again recently in the Geologic Column thread. And every time, you provide zero evidence. Until you attempt to do so, these claims will be filed in the category of "Russ makes stuff up."



Bullpuckey. You only have the audacity to say stuff like this because you deliberately ignore all evidence to the contrary. I've been posting a lot of it here lately and my guess is either you haven't read it, or you've swept it under your very large carpet.



The answer to that should be very clear by now.

Each and every one of your arguments are based on assumptions and a very narrow belief falling within a very narrow set of contrived parameters.

Herein lies the fundamental problem with your argument.

You claim that this type of sedimentation only happens in certain environments, but in reality, this "environment" includes the entire land mass.

Why?

Because of the global flood -- Yes, the flood that you continue to deny all evidence for.

Furthermore, the geologic column IS OLD! It's an old concept that was invented before this type of sedimentation was widely known.

So you may ask, "Why don't they just change it?"

Well, here is a concept that you need to learn to consider in your world view that explains this very "human" problem:

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

—Tolstoy 1828-1910
As quoted in "Chaos: Making A New Science", James Gleick



In reality, you've left human and corporate agenda out of the equation.

As I've said, many have come forward and admitted that fossil dates are set to match their supposed "layer" so that a simple, publicly consumable model can be presented that supports your (and their) favorite religion:

Evolution.

Your blind trust of this first hand testimony -- which is consistent with so many other areas of science and research today (areas that I have first-hand knowledge of) -- is fantastically naive.

This is the way the world really works Linda, and as much as I know you despise the Bible (which you know little about), it does predict biometrics, and the short trip to hell that goes along with it, which is why the information-brokers keep manipulating you away from the Bible.

The scary thing is that you have become an unwitting accomplice to their crime.

Not good Linda.

Evolution is clearly a social control, not an observable science, and since science is a process of observation, evolution has to be taken on faith, and is therefore, by definition, a religion.

This statement is pure fact.

The reason you keep rejecting it is because you have not studied subjects that help you connect what is currently happening in "science" and politics with the larger agenda.

This is not a joke or a game. Life has been created to fulfill a purpose. Don't die not knowing what that purpose is. Especially don't remain willfully ignorant of life's purpose.

That is truly a dangerous and selfish thing to do.

I'm going to reply to the post above, and then I'm going to paste two posts from Russ that were put in a different thread, and respond to them here, because they are about the alleged global flood.



You seem to be telling me that because there was a global flood (your presupposition), then there should be a global sedimentary layer showing deposition the way your video shows it, which is not the way it happens in the real world: You are still looking at horizontally-deposited layers, with coarser material closer to the shore and finer material further out; go inland a little beyond the coarse particles and you might even find sand dunes and hills or mountains. That's just a coastal environment where there is wave action and marine transgression or regression; there are records of other kinds of environments in the geologic column. In a post below, I will give examples of rock types that form slowly or not in water at all. How do you get those in a global flood? How do you get varves? How . . . well, there are a lot of questions I've asked here that have just been ignored, which we will perhaps return to later.

One more note on Walther's Law. I found this diagram of a marine transgression, which is a better illustration of what is happening. You can see from this that in a vertical section, the oldest layers are at the bottom and the youngest at the top, as we would expect, with the deposition material changing as you go further out to sea or closer to the coast. The layers overlap each other because in a transgression, the water level gradually rises, so the deposition sequence moves in the direction of the coast. However, the verticality of the diagrams I've linked to, and the “Drama in the Rocks” video, is greatly exaggerated. (This is often the case in order for a principle to be illustrated, though it is common practice to say so and give the real scale). A more realistic example of the slope of the contacts would be akin to the land slope of going from New Orleans, LA (0 feet) to Minneapolis, MN (830 feet, or 1/7 mile) -– a horizontal distance of 1,299 miles, but still a substantial change in elevation. If the diagram were drawn to true scale, you're looking at a vertical rise of about 1/4500th of that shown in the diagram. Some slopes are a little steeper, but at about 10 degrees or higher, the particles will roll down the slope without being deposited on it (such a “steep” slope is called a bypass slope).



You've got yourself convinced that:
a) Geologists are unaware of Walther's law or they are conspiring to hide it from the public, which is belied by the fact that I've given evidence here to the contrary and the internet is full of same;
b) Even minor adjustments have never been made to the geologic column as new evidence has come to light – never once in the past 100 years has this happened;
c) Somehow, absolute dating methods don't correlate with the relationships geologists found in rock layers when all they had were relative dating methods – even though this is historical fact and you've provided zero evidence for your own contrary notion.




That is not an answer to my question. You strategy here seems to be, more or less, “avoid everything.” For example, “I can't explain how radiometric dating is flawed so I'm just going to claim it's lies or ignore it.” Do you think this is a logical or scientific approach to dealing with evidence?

For more information on how relationships in the geologic column were and are established, by relative means such as Steno's Laws and absolute methods such radiometric dating (and how they correlate), see Radiometric Dating and the Geologic Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?

Much Evidence Exists for a Worldwide Flood

Twentieth-century geologists taught the familiar maxim: "The present is the key to the past."

But now that catastrophic processes are widely employed to describe the strata record, twenty-first century geologists are wondering whether "marine flood sedimentation is the key to the past."

Geological strata and their contained marine fossils provide critical evidence that the ocean once covered the continents, even the highest continental areas. Extremely widespread strata blankets argue for an intercontinental or global flood.

The Sauk Sequence extends throughout North America and appears to extend into Europe. The Tippecanoe Sequence also covers much of North America and may well extend into Europe and Africa. There are also intercontinental redbed sequences, intercontinental tuff beds, and coal-bearing strata cycles.

Granular, water-charged sediment flows result in very rapid stratification. Dilute flows produce thick sequences of plane beds, graded beds, and crossbeds by sustained unidirectional flow. Such flows also produce thick sequences of hummocky beds by sustained bidirectional flow.

Concentrated sediment flows produce thick strata sequences by abrupt deposition from liquefied suspension or evenly bedded strata by flow transformation to a tractive current.

These and many other obvious processes are leading many geologists to construct a global flood model for earth history.

Continued: http://www.icr.org/geological-strata/

Well yes, some (not all) strata do contain marine fossils. And yes they appear in layers in (within) mountains, along with other kinds of layers, some igneous, some metamorphic, some deposited in dry conditions, some deposited slowly in calm conditions. The world has undergone a lot of change.

This post then mentions the Sauk and Tippecanoe Sequences, followed by some models of how sediment can form quickly. I am not enough of an expert in deposition to know if they've got it right, but it's quite clear that not all sediment is deposited rapidly.

A broad answer to all of these claims can be found here – scroll down to the Geologic Column heading. Look familiar? Yes it's the Williston Basin again (as discussed in the geologic column thread), which is an area where the complete geologic column can be observed. It also includes the Sauk and Tippecanoe Sequences. Presumably the above post is trying to claim that these are flood layers (which is rather strange, since these sequences have known limits and most certainly do not cover the whole world).

Notice that Morton gives you details about the Deadwood Formation, the bottom-most sedimentary layer, which dates to the late Cambrain/early Ordovician (Sauk Sequence); and the subsequent Winnipeg and Silurian Interlake Formations (Tippecanoe Sequence). Upon closer study than the previous post is willing to give, there are a great many problems with trying to label these as flood layers as you can see from Morton's article. It's simply an absurd notion.



If that's the calibre of their science then I would sincerely doubt that these global flood models are watertight.

Geological Evidence Indicates Rapid Formation

There is extensive evidence for the layers of strata in the geologic record being laid down very quickly, similar to the processes observed when Mount St. Helens erupted. Rapid global formation of sedimentary rock beds is evidence that the earth is thousands of years old.

The major formations of the earth’s crust are sedimentary rock beds. These were formed by rapid erosion, transportation, and deposition by water. There is no global evidence of long periods of time between these layers or indications that these layers took long periods of time to form.

For example, sandstone is a major feature of the lower part of the Grand Canyon. The same rock layer is found in Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, South Dakota, the Midwest, the Ozarks, and in northern New York state. Equivalent formations are found across wide portions of Canada, eastern Greenland, and Scotland.

The flood that covered the earth formed the large geological structures that we can observe today.

Continued: http://www.icr.org/earth-formation/

Repeat after me, class, for the twentieth time or until you get it right: rapid formation of some things does not indicate rapid formation of all things.

All you need in order to prove Russ' (ICR's) statement false is one single rock layer that could not possibly have formed rapidly. I mentioned blueschist in a previous post. Limestone is another, and older still are marble and dolomite (which are limestone that has been metamorphosed). Limestone is composed of the skeletons of micro-organisms which live in the top 10 meters or so of shallow seas. When these tiny creatures die their calcium rich skeletons sink to the sea floor, and over long periods of time the depths of limestone accumulation can become substantial. The limestone layers of the White Cliffs of Dover are 200 to 300 meters thick and are thought to have accumulated over a period of around 10 million years. A flood scenario that would have laid down the limestone layers in less than a single year just a few thousand years ago presents a problem. It's also a bit of a puzzle as to how there are different layers above and below it in the same supposed flood deposit.



Erm . . . no:





Some were formed that way: rapidly by water. Some were formed slowly by water (e.g. limestone and evaporites). Some were formed by the wind with no water present (e.g. aeolian sandstone). We've got blatant lying by omission here. Either that, or someone needs to open a geology book.



What does this have to do with anything? It's like me saying that because there's soil on my land, and there's soil in lots of other places too, then all those exact soil layers must have been deposited at the same time by the same worldwide event, in the same manner. There's no logic to this.

Your entire premise is founded on the claim that there was no global flood.

This is your fatal flaw.

We know there was one, and when you combine this knowledge with the sedimentation model I presented earlier, then we can understand why fossils sometimes appear in a certain order.

Because your reasoning is based on a single flawed point, your entire argument falls apart when exposed to the evidence.

Sorry.

I'm not sure if we're going to get anywhere with this because you seem to be ignoring every post I've made here. We can but speculate as to why you continue to make certain claims when you should by now be able to see that they are misguided, but let's turn this around and ask you for evidence for your own position, since this has so far been distinctly lacking.

Can you explain how a marine transgression in the fossil record means there must have been a global flood? Can you identify where the global flood layer is? Can you explain where there is any evidence of a global flood? And what do you means about fossils sometimes appearing in a certain order?

The fossil patterns you see a few sites around the world (that evolutionism has entitled the "fossil record") form through the sedimentation model that is presented in this video:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002C

The layers do not represent increments in time, they represent other factors that affect how quickly and efficiently they "settle".

This model is physically demonstrated by working models in this video.



A global flood did not create a "layer", so to speak. It's more complex than that.

In some areas where water receded slowly, you see layering. The layering is different in sloped areas. In area where you have fast runoff, the existing layers are stripped away.

You see, this is a complex problem (that you have) that is well explained by the dynamics of a global flood.

One thing we would expect to find with a global flood is marine life fossils in unusually high places. We do.

The global flood model solves ALL of these problems.

Your incessant belief in transitional uniform layering is not what we find in the field.



Simply by the laws that govern sedimentation, fossils will arrange themselves in a flood scenario in predictable orders.

Hence, we see some consistency in the ordering of fossils in some parts of the Earth.

Again, a global flood solves all of the problems and is the best model to explain the evidence.


"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, —Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."

—Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

Blimey, talk about banging one's head against a brick wall. I have provided link after link, and several diagrams, showing you how layers are really deposited in a marine transgression. Yet you ignore them and continue to insist that your video proves everything you want it to prove. What it proves is that you will cling most strongly to something that says what you want it to say, regardless of its basis in reality. In a marine transgression, the law of original horizontality still holds, which the most recent diagram I posted here shows quite clearly -- but I think you probably didn't look at it.

Let's take this from another angle then. You seem to think that the entire geologic column should be made up of marine transgressions because somehow you believe that this shows waters settling after a flood, am I correct? The geologic column is full from top to bottom of the following phenomena: aeolian (wind-deposited) formations; paleosols; mud cracks (formed during evaporation); evaporite rocks; burrows of small animals; stromatolites; corprolites; rock that forms slowly such as shale, limestone, blueschist and other metamorphic rock. These are just a few curious phenomena that make a global flood rather unlikely. Now maybe you can tell us how a marine transgression explains the presence of all of those things in the geologic column.



There are layers showing mature marine environments, including burrows again and layer upon layer of brachiopods (creatures like clams attached by stalks to the sea floor), interspersed with the kinds of layers described above, within mountains. How does a global flood explain that? How does a flood detach an intact marine environment with brachiopods, still attached to the sea floor, along with other kinds of rock layers above and below, including igneous and metamorphic, and make a mountain out of them all, or plonk them down on top of a hill?



In areas where water recedes, you'd see the particles sorted hydrologically. Unfortunately this is not what is observed in much of the geologic column. To look again at the phanerozoic layers in the Williston Basin in North Dakota, you have (from bottom to top):

-- sandstone full of trilobites and the burrows of a marine worm (scolithus);
-- shale, whose very fine particles only settle out in tranquil water;
-- more sandstone, similar to the first layer and most probably formed by erosion of the first layer;
-- more shale;
-- limestone and dolomite (metamorphic rock);
-- a layer of carbonates, anhydrites (a type of evaporite), salt and sand.

This only takes us part of the way through the Devonian; there are many more kinds of rocks above. How do these fit with your flood model? Why do we have marine worms making burrows with delicate winnowing during a period of turbulent waters? And the biggest question for me: why do we only see the fossils of small organisms of the kind we would expect to see layered in the fossil record at this time? If there was a global flood, why do we not see the fossils of organisms killed during the flood, mixed with each other anywhere? Why are there no fossils of people or elephants or dinosaurs anywhere in these layers? In your scenario of hydrological sorting, shouldn't the heaviest animals sink to the bottom more quickly?



Your incessant denial of reality is getting tiresome, and the use of the word "we" here is curious, since if you really went out "in the field" yourself with some basic knowledge of what you were doing, you would see why these claims you are making are nonsense.



Fossils are consistently layered everywhere with the oldest at the bottom and the youngest at the top. You have not presented one iota of evidence that this is not the case anywhere in the world.

No you haven't.

What you have actually provided is an interpretation of evidence. Unfortunately, as this video clearly demonstrates even using physical models, is that your interpretation is outdated and based on inaccurate information.

I'm sure we'll continue to disagree on this, but clearly, my model is much more logical. Your model is full of contradictions, such as those related to transstrata trees.



Um, this supports my position. They are distributed there by cracks in the rock during very high water (flood).

The sedimentation model I have provided you with explains the layering, and again I will say, this model (the most recent one by your own admission) does not date fossils according to depth, which is implied by your use of the word "within".

Depth-dating is outdated.



(1) Transplantation
(2) Volcanic activity
(3) You also have to consider growth rates. How long does it actually take for these to grow?



The key word here is "much".

Let's be accurate and change that to "some".

Now we see that there is more chaos in the sedimentation than we would like, but again, this is easily explained by washing away of some areas and sedimentation of other areas.

Science likes to put things into pretty boxes, but your model does not fit. There are loose edges that they don't like to talk about. Nevertheless, we have deal with them if we are going to have integrity.



Again, it depends on the location.

You would expect to see this in SOME areas, like we do.

Sedimentation is complex and affected by many thing. Sometimes it will act as expected. Other times, erosion and washing away will removes something we would expect to find (flooding), while at other times we may expect to find trans-strata trees.

There are no great mysteries here, it's just that this process is sufficiently complicated as to be misinterpreted by those with a bias.



Not necessarily. Nevertheless, if my memory serves me correctly, there are. Either way, we cannot draw hard conclusions on these facts alone. Again, it is a complex process that has the potential to cause all kinds of phenomenon.

We have to look at clusters of animals and organisms based on habitat, erosive flows, volcanic/mountainous upheavals, transportation of specimens, and more.

In a diluvian model, you would expect much complex chaos caused by local conditions and events that occur often during only short periods of time. These short periods of time would make locating evidence of the event hard, especially when long periods of have passed, which then cause scientists to draw mistaken thoughts or ideas.

We see all kinds of things out there, and this is what I expect to find. The difference is that I am willing to talk about the hard cases while evolutionists attempt to quickly explain them away, and those explanation often turn out poorly.

Such an example is trans-strata fossils.



Is this still Linda that I'm debating with?

What about the video that I keep posting do you not understand?

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002C


"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "

—David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

The first question has to be, if you believe in the literalness of the diagrams you saw, why do you not understand that the particles would simply roll down the slope?

The second question is, when the internet is full of illustrations of marine transgressions and Walther's Law, do you insist that your pet video is correct? Oh that's right – it must be because the scientists don't know what they're on about, or they're liars. The fact that they've physically studied the evidence and you haven't doesn't come into it of course.

The third question is, why you believe the basic premise here, which is false. You seem to be ascribing various “proofs” to the video when all it's trying to say is that the fossil order in a marine transgression doesn't follow the law of faunal succession. As I've said several times, if early geologists using Steno's Laws and other methods of relative dating had been wrong, then modern dating methods would have shown this to be the case. If you think that there is a giant conspiracy and dating methods don't work, you need to show this. It would of course be difficult for you to do because they do and this has been demonstrated many times over.



This is just getting funny now. I've explained to you twice in the Geologic Column thread why polystrate trees are not a problem for geology, evolution, etc. Your method of ignoring my posts and continuing to repeat the same falsehoods is not going to add any veracity to your position, apart from in your head perhaps.

I said,


You said,


I'm struggling to make sense of this comment. Perhaps you didn't read my above sentences very closely. We see layers of mature marine environments, WITHIN mountains. How do layers of brachiopods or corals grow on the sea floor when “they are distributed there by cracks in the rock during very high water”?

There are a number of ways that scientists can tell that brachiopods have been growing in place. One of the more obvious is to find the fossilised pedicle, or stalk which attaches it to the seafloor (or on top of the shells of other dead brachiopods). This is a rare find but the pedicle can clearly be seen in well-preserved fossils, often in Konzentrat-Lagerstätten. Strangely, some of these are in mountainous areas. The question for you to answer is how this kind of assemblage falls through cracks in rocks and continues to grow. 20-year-old brachiopods are not uncommon in these fossils; that's a bit of a long time for them to be growing in a crack in a rock during the global flood. There's also the obvious question of how they would get food and sunlight in there. There's also the question of how transplanted marine creatures were burrowing in soft mud there. Please face the facts Russ: this didn't happen.



Explains what layering? It's an erroneous model of a marine transgression with exaggerated verticality. Let's try this yet another way. Have a look here. This is the site with the first diagram I linked you to. Scroll down to where it says “Facies” and look at the diagram of a normal marine environment. You can see the depositional order from the shore out to sea: sand, shale, carbonate. The law of horizontal deposition obviously applies here; you are just looking at different kinds of deposits in different areas. A marine transgression is no different from this apart from the fact that the layers will be slanted toward the shore as the water rises. This takes a long time by the way. If you scroll further down you will find information and diagrams for transgressions and regressions. Now it's your choice to again ignore this – perhaps you're not even reading it – but you will just make yourself look silly if you continue to claim that your video somehow explains everything. It is not representing reality to you, and IMO this is quite deliberate.

I said,


Which I've discussed again above, but your reply is rather astounding:


OK . . .
1) How do you “transplant” large horizontal layers of brachiopods with their stalks intact without evoking something magical?
2) How does volcanic activity accomplish this? I am truly puzzled here.
3) Brachiopods can live 20-30 years and as stated above, they have been found with stalks intact. This is just one type of organism. Corals are a problem for your model as well.



What do you mean, “act as expected”? The only sedimentation you seem to expect is a global transgressive layer, which does not exist. Below this you presumably expect there to be a flood layer. And why should erosion or rapid deposition fool geologists somehow, if that is what you are suggesting?

The fact of your ignorance of geologic processes is not your fault. What I find questionable is that you talk like you know what you're on about and rubbish a large body of scientific evidence in the process. Let's look at some different ways that sediment can be deposited, other than in a shallow coastal area or in a flood.

Deep water, which includes laminae (a type of which is varves). Notice that the deposition processes and materials are very different from those in your beloved video.

Aeolian deposits are deposited by wind, not water. An example is the Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon.

Riverbanks and meanders.

Glacial till.

Paleosols.

Note that none of these deposits can occur during a flood, and the geologic record contains them in many places. By this point in the discussion many people would rest their case and tell you that you need to open a basic geology book. Me, I have time on my hands at the moment and don't mind explaining these things so that they should be obvious.

I said,


You said,


Yet you have never provided any evidence to this effect. How do people here know you're not making it up?



What's complex about it? In a flood that should have killed off virtually every living thing on earth, we should find a few fossils mixed together somewhere. Yet this has never been found. Considering the fact that such a find would invalidate the law of faunal succession, it seems strange that creationists don't seem to have any evidence to offer.



Scientists already do these things. They haven't found any evidence that violates the law of faunal succession. Maybe you can explain what you yourself would be looking for.



We'll bypass this notion that if a lot of time has passed, scientists (bless) can get boggled. Let's move on to evidence that shows us that there was or wasn't a flood in an area. Believe it or not, evidence for a flood is not that hard to spot. There was a thread here a while back which you can't be expected to know about because you did not participate in it, though you posted the OP: Is the Grand Canyon Proof of Noah's Flood? In it you will find:

Post 35985, 37617, 37689
The Channeled Scablands in Washington state show evidence of multiple catastrophic floods.

While no evidence is found in the Grand Canyon for catastrophic flooding:

35986, 37327, 37673
Brachiopods, and fossils found in faunal succession

37390
Absence of oxbow lakes

37726
(toward bottom of post) Ripple marks, footprints and paleosols

37735
U-Pb dating shows rate of erosion too slow for a flood

37749
Principle of faunal succession demonstrated layer after layer

38224
Coconino Sandstone is an aeolian deposit containing spider and scorpion tracks

So we can see from this that scientists can tell where there has been catastrophic flooding (the Channeled Scablands) and that it didn't happen in the Grand Canyon. This would be evidence for localised but not global flooding. And your evidence to the contrary, Russ, is . . . ?

Because the experiment provided a physical model that works.

Um, not sure what you're not seeing here.




Strawman.

I'm not saying that scientists don't know what they're talking about.

I'm differentiating between hypothesis and observation.



You attempt to explain away polystrate trees is a joke. Why on Earth would you believe this.

I guess if you believe that rocks and water self-assemble into highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual (different organisms having perfectly compatible reproductive systems), self-reproducing machines, you would believe anything.

The claim you are holding on to is statistically impossible.

Do you not see this, aside from the personal bias?



It is a physical model that works. It works. It's demonstrated before your eyes.

I'm waiting to hear how those brachiopods got to the tops of mountains with their stalks still attached to the sea floor or to other dead brachiopods, as well as many other things discussed here -- my first two posts in this thread have been almost completely ignored, yet they contain evidence that makes a global flood very unlikely indeed. So does the information about the scablands and the Grand Canyon in my previous post. My guess is that it will be ignored as well.

Your faith in your video is getting tedious to discuss; it seems that no matter what reality is, you will ignore it because presumably you can't deal with the notion that the information in it could be wrong or even deliberately misleading. This is the last time I intend to address it.

I said:


You said:


The only place it works is in your head. Wet sediment would just roll down a slope that extreme. Any simple experiment at home will show you this. For some clastics the slope need only be 5% for them to roll down. The verticality of the diagram you saw is extremely exaggerated in order to give you the erroneous notion that what you would see is vertical facies with the false appearance of horizontality. If you continue to gainsay this then that's your choice but it is just plain wrong, as any book on geology would show you, and as my links here have shown you. Do you honestly care about the truth like you continually claim, or in reality do you ignore the truth when it's inconvenient for you? Rhetorical question.



I haven't "explained them away," I've explained them. Geologists understand very well how they are formed. Like the video that you cling to here, you seem unwilling to drop the "polystrate trees are a problem" nonsense because creationists keep making that claim and they can't be wrong can they? You keep getting fed stuff about "uniformitarianism" when scientists know that catastrophic events occur and that some sediments can be deposited rapidly. Sediment is deposited relatively rapidly in the case of polystrate trees. Now what do you think that proves exactly? It does not disprove that some sediments, such as varves and limestone, form very slowly. It's just a red herring.

Keep claiming that I'm wrong if that's what you feel you need to do. When (and if ever) you are ready to deal with other issues in this thread, I will be happy to respond.

There are two ways:

(1) Water existing in many locations for much longer than 40 days. The recession rate was most certainly different in different places around the globe.

(2) I already explained the transplantation method, in which strong current carry already developed organisms to new locations. They settle in, take root, or otherwise inhabit the area until the water recedes.



You have continually denied that this model works, yet, it has been demonstrated physically for you.

I really can't help you with this one because you just keep denying what you see before you.



That's simply not true.

Yes, there are myriad of theories that attempt to explain some situations, but to say they are well-understood is a lie.

I have read evolutionist argument after argument for polystrat fossils and they are garbage; All of them.

They usually are long-winded explanations that sound quite scientific and impressive, but when you really think about what they are claiming, it is purely ridiculous.

Yes, there are instances when trees could possibly be buried quickly and keep their form, and they love to give examples of this, but this argument does not cover a large percentage of what we actually find in the field, so this evidence is just ignored by evolutionists.

I'm not surprised. This is the standard modus operandi that evolutionists use to baffle simple minds into accepting their religion/faith.

If you don't admit and recognize the enormous holes the evolution-claims about polystrate fossils, you are either (1) mentally incapable of understanding the way simply physical processes work and been emotionally baffled by evolutionists claims, or (2) in deep denial, or (3) not being honest.

In all honestly, the more I have studied evolution, the more I am shocked that anyone ever bought into this garbage. It's simply not scientific.

It much more resembles a long, drawn out, and eccentric series of "how it could have happened" claims... Honestly!


"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."

—Dr. Fleischman, Erlangen Zoologist


"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."

—Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.


"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."

—J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

The problem is, Russ, you are speculating without actually looking at the evidence in the fossil record.

Brachiopods are found in the Burgess Shale, a famous Lagerstätte. The Burgess Shale is found in the Canadian Rockies of British Columbia, on a ridge between two mountains. It consists of 10 strata which are full of mostly benthic (bottom-dwelling) organisms. Some moved about and some (such as brachiopods) were permanently attached to the sea floor. The majority of them fed on organic content in the muddy sea floor; others filtered out particles from water. There is also evidence of burrowing and trackways in the strata.

Now let's try to match this to your flood scenario. The flood takes one or all of these strata from the sea floor and transports them up to a mountain, where it deposits the whole thing in a crack in the rock. All of those benthic organisms that are attached to the sea floor in a similar way to plants (such as sponges) have managed to stay attached to the sea floor rather than being ripped out by the turbulence. Every single one of the organisms from the ecosystem has been systematically transported to the crack in the rocks and no other organism has been mixed with them -- no seahorses, no fish, no seaweed, absolutely nothing we'd recognise as being from later geologic eras. Nor have they been disarticulated or died; they thrive in those rocks inside the mountain ridge. And if all 10 strata weren't magically transported at once, then they grow one at a time, in that crack, with no sunlight, and somehow plenty of mud and silt. All this happens while the flood waters are high enough to cover mountains.

Just how silly is this going to get before you admit to yourself that it isn't what happened? And where do the volcanoes you mentioned fit into it?



This has gone beyond silly. Wet. Sand. Rolls. Down. A. Slope.
What's more, your erudite knowledge of geology brings you to the conclusion that all phanerozoic strata on earth should consist of a giant marine transgression, which your video doesn't even claim. I don't suppose there's any point in trying to reiterate that this is wrong too. As long as you sit in your chair and don't go outside to look at rocks with a little geological knowledge, you can no doubt feel free to claim anything you want to regardless of its basis in reality.



That geologists don't know how polystrate trees form?
Geological explanation

a) Strata around polystrate trees form relatively quickly.
b) Some other types of sediment, such as varves and limestone, form slowly.
a) does not disprove b).
c) Red. Herring.

"IT IS A FEARFUL THING TO FALL INTO THE HANDS OF THE LIVING GOD." Hebrews 10:31

"For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry." (Hebrews 10:37)

"Now the just shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasrue in him."

But we, (Christians) are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." (vs. 38,39).

God is watching you, Linda Lou. And I can assure you, that He, the Creator of all things, ALL, !.... is NOT pleased with your attitude or 'belief system'.

God cannot, CANNOT LIE! (Titus 1:2)

God's Word is TRUTH, and He said there was a flood, and Noah built the ark......then IT WAS SO !

You, Linda Lou, are "tranpling under foot the Word of the Sovereign Lord Jesus!"

"Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholdy thing and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" Hebrews 10:29

Take heed, Linda Lou, "For we know him that hath said, vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. and again, The Lord shall judge his people." (v.30).

Linda Lou, you CAN NOT say that you have't been warned! You are reading the WRONG books.

Jesus is coming soon. Believe it or not....He will come and only believers in His sacrificing blood on the cross for the forgiveness of their sins, and acceptance of Him as their Savior, will be able to enter His Celestial City.

The UNbelievers will, WILL BE CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE, WITH SATAN AND ALL OF HIS FOLLOWERS AND THEY THAT BELIEVE NOT THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPLE OF OUR SOVEREIGN LORD AND SAVIOR, JESUS THE CHRIST.

There will be 'no blood' on the hands of Russ, CTD, Bex, Lynn, or myself. We have told you.

JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS TO SAVE YOU , Linda Lou!

"God will not be mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap."