|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential Evidence for a Global Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Thanks Granny Magda, I missed this.
Just being me writes: Jbm, could you provide an example, with references to trees of course, of one of these occurrences? Yet the examples of thousands of polystrate tree and animal fossils I am referring to are found as well preserved at the top portions as they are at the bottom. Edited by Pressie, : Edited a sentence Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
We call ourselves actualists! (Although I haven't heard the terms "actualists" or "uniformatists" or "gradualists" while I was studying. We only studied those rocks. I only heard those terms later from creationists on the net when discovering that some people still think the world is 6 000 years old).
Edited by Pressie, : Added the last part in brackets Edited by Pressie, : Added another word Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle from "Re: Polystrate fossils" to "Actualism".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
I know, I know, it's useless responding to him, but I'll give it a go.
Robert Byers writes: I guess that’s why mining companies employ me provide a model of their deposits. They do go and check if my models reflect reality. it costs them a lot of money. If it doesn’t meet reality, I loose my job. The geologist is to discover the truth. Robert Byers writes: Evidence (the rocks themselves) indicate that the same processes we observe today also occurred in the past. It’s amazing what studying evidence can do! Just figuring things out by present processesRobert Byers writes: You mean things like gravity ceased to exist in the past for a while? Magic? only works if non present processes are indeed impossible. Robert Byers writes: Gravity doesn’t cease to exist, even under very special conditions. Are you referring to magic? Other processes can and would exist in special conditions. Robert Byers writes: Magic can produce anything. It isn’t science. Don’t even pretend that it is science. Only if its impossible for special conditions to produce these results can there be confidence in the conclusions from ordinary observed processes. Robert Byers writes: Huh? I don’t really understand, but not all geology is about layers. In fact, a lot of geology is about batoliths and dykes and sills and metamorphyses and pypes, etc. Since its all about layers then its all about layers being laid. Robert Byers writes: It is well understood how "layering mechanisms" could be increased. Lots of ways. Decreased too. Lots of ways. Are you referring to more water, less water, deeper water, shallower water, faster moving water, slower moving water, more wind, less wind, faster moving wind, slower moving wind, a bigger sea, a smaller sea, a shallower sea, a deeper sea, a faster stream, a slower stream, a shallower stream, a deeper stream, a lagoon, an open sea, turbidite deposits in lakes, turbidite deposits in oceans, delta front deposits, braided river deposits, glacial deposits, etc? Combinations of all of the above? What do you mean exactly? We do know what deposits resulting from each of these processes look like. No magic involved. Increase the layering mechanism..Robert Byers writes: Instant many layered sediments? Doesn’t make sense. Can you give us an example of this? I mean, we can see sediments currently forming in one instant. You can even do it at home. Fill a bottle with sand and water. Shake. Leave for a few minutes. Voila. .. and one has a way to account for instant many layered sediment structures. Robert Byers writes: Sorry, lots of things in your post don’t make any sense at all. Your last sentence, for example, is Greek to me and I don’t speak Greek. A line of reasoning. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : Spelling baaaad!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Taq writes: [sarcasm]The flood was different. We had thousands of seasons in that year. Remember anything was possible. That's evidence for the flood![/sarcasm]
Also, you need to account for hundreds of thousands of years worth of diatom growth in a single flood year.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
[sarcasm] What's even more amazing is that all this happened while the continents were on hydroplates speeding through the ocean faster than the Concorde could fly. Wonderful evidence for the flood. Truly amazing [/sarcasm]
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : Changed structure
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Now that the thread is open again, could we get some answers from one of the creationists who made very big claims? Could I have an answer from Just being real on
Pressie writes: Jbr, you should be able to back up your claim. Without this, your whole argument collapses. Could you please give any real-life example of where fossils that pierce through strata that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart? I simply don’t believe you.When I say an example, I don’t mean where creationists claim that uniformitarian geologists say this. I mean an example of where a uniformitarian geologist actually says this. Could I also have an answer from Just being real on this:
Pressie writes: Just being real, do you think that, for example, the Tournaisian Stage, Mississippi Epoch, Carboniferous Period (shown as one colour and one division in the geologic column), consists of one stratum deposited from around 345 to 359 million years ago at one constant sedimentary rate? These are important questions, all involving basic claims creationists make. Why do so many creationists ignore the very basic fundamentals of a subject they pretend to know so much about? They think they know so much that they 'know" that more than 99.99% of all the specialists on that subject are wrong. They should be able to back up their very profound claims with at least one reference. "Uniformatist" geologists can. With thousands of references. Edited by Pressie, : Added a sentence or teo! Edited by Pressie, : Erased the last sentence as it is not really applicable
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Just being real writes: Not at all. You have to find empirical evidence for such a flood first. If you can’t present any evidence for the flood, any speculation on the age of something that didn’t happen is just wishful thinking. In this thread, we discuss the evidence for that event. In other words, you have to provide evidence that some strata were deposited by a global flood. So far you’ve not presented anything, apart from straw men about what you claim uniformatist geologists say. Seeing that you can’t even present one little piece of evidence, now you want to discuss age, you might as well discuss the age of the fairies in my garden. We need evidence that such a flood occurred first.
I find this akin to saying, We want you to tell us about the American Independence Day, but you are not allowed to mention the date of July the Fourth Seventeen hundred and Seventy Six. If the "age" of the strata is the evidence, then how can we present "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood" without discussing the age of the strata? Remember, we are not talking about just any global flood, but a geologically RECENT global flood. Just being real writes: Evidence. We’re here to discuss evidence. You can’t discuss the age of fairies in this forum. You can discuss evidence for the flood. So the question is (since your the Man with all the power and his hand poised to pull the plug at any second), are we going to be permitted to discuss potential evidence for a global flood in the "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood" thread, or not? It also doesn't help you to ignore questions. Jbr, could you refer us to any "uniformatist" geologist who claimed that different strata around creationist "polystrate" fossils are "millions of years apart"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Just being real writes: Are you serious? Do jou think that those trees grew through layers of ROCK? I've never seen a tree start growing in a depth below a couple of feet. And I have never seen them grow through other layers sedementary ROCK. The trees you suggest are an example of doing this, again have not been found growing through even one let alone more than one seem of coal. Just being real writes: You just keep repeating the same straw man. Nobody has ever said that they are separated by millions of years. Quite a few people have pointed at this, but you just ignore it. No I totally get that you are saying the layers were laid down quickly, what I don't get is that they are sepperated by not 50 years, as in your dad's pocket watch analogy, but rather millions of years. I'll repeat, seeing that you seem to ignore this: No "uniformatist" geologist has ever said that those layers are separated by millions of years. You ignoring it only reflects badly on you. just being real writes: Again, they didn’t have to wait millions of years. And the trees are supposed to have waited around for each "quick" layer to cover more of it up, until it was eventually fully covered and then presevered. That sir, I do not get at all. We see it happening all over the world today. You were even shown examples of where it is happening today. You ignoring it won’t let the facts go away. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Just being real, I started reading your reference in post 266, Creation Evidence Museum of Texas I came to the third paragraph, which reads:
creationevidence writes: In The Creation-Evolution Controversy author R.L. Wysong wrote about an unusual polystrate tree, This polystrate tree penetrates a visible distance of ten feet through volcanic sandstone of the Clarno formation in Oregon. Potassium-Argon dating of the nearby John Day formation suggest that 1,000 feet of rock was deposited over a period of about seven million years, or, in other words, at the rate of the thickness of this page annually! However, catastrophic burial must have formed the rock and caused the fossilization, otherwise, the tree would have rotted and collapsed.[2] I didn’t read further. I can’t believe that people can mislead so openly and you still believe them. Let’s start. The Clarno formation has all characteristics of being deposited by lahars. You know what that is? A lahar is a type of mudflow or debris flow composed of a slurry of pyroclastic material, rocky debris, and water. The material flows down from a volcano, typically along a river valley. Your R.L. Wysong should stick to being a veterinarian, he is a clown when he comes to geology. He doesn’t even klnow the very basics of geology. "Volcanic sandstone The animals and plants couldn’t get away quickly enough from the lahars, they died and were covered quickly by pyroclastic deposits, not sandstones. This is described even in Wiki. There’s a huge difference between pyroclastic material and sandstone.From: John Day Fossil Beds National Monument - Wikipedia Wiki writes: Also note that the Clarno is not one stratum. It consists of lots of strata. Volcanic eruptions about 44 million years ago during the Eocene deposited lavas accompanied by debris flows (lahars) atop the older rocks in the western part of the province. Containing fragments of shale, siltstone, conglomerates, and breccias, the debris flows entombed plants and animals caught in their paths; the remnants of these ancient flows comprise the rock formations exposed in the Clarno Unit.[36] Preserved in the Clarno Nut Beds are fossils of tropical and subtropical nuts, fruits, roots, branches, and seeds.[37] Large mammals inhabiting this region between 50 and 35 million years ago included browsers such as brontotheres and amynodonts, scavengers like the hyaenodonts, as well as Patriofelis and other predators.[37] Eroded remnants of the Clarno stratovolcanoes, once the size of Mount Hood, are still visible near the monument, for example Black Butte, White Butte, and other buttes near Mitchell.[38]Then the John Day Formation: http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/...tent/abstract/12/4/229 geoscienceworld writes: This formation was deposited as volcanic deposits. You should familiarize yourself what a pyroclastic deposit looks like. Then you should familiarize yourself on what a sandstone looks like. Volcanoes don’t produce any deposits at the rate of the thickness of this page annually. They produce deposits when they erupt. Volcanic deposits are products of volcanic action. The John Day Formation in Oregon consists largely of silicic to intermediate pyroclastic material ranging in age from about 19 to 37 m.y. Stratigraphic and lithologic variations within the formation indicate that the bulk of this material was derived from vents west of the 121st meridian, in or near the present-day Cascade Range. Voluminous dacitic to andesite air-fall material was probably derived from volcanoes within the western Cascade Range, whereas rhyolitie ash-flow tuffs and lava flows were erupted from vents farther east. Sparse alkali basalt and trachyandesite flows, compositionally distinct from Cascade Range lavas, were erupted from local vents within the John Day outcrop area. Initiation of John Day volcanism about 37 m.y. ago signified a shift in the locus of calc-alkaline volcanic activity from the Blue Mountains to the Cascade Range and marked the emergence of the Cascade Range as a major volcanic feature. Just being real, I’m not going to read the rest of your article. They twist the truth way too much. I’d rather get my information from honest sources. Pyroclastic deposits are a result of volcanoes. Not global floods. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Just being real writes: Which brings me to another point. The fact that Piltdown Man was a hoax was discovered by paleontologists and biologists, because it contradicted newly discovered evidence and did not fit in with reality. Scientists don’t need and don't use Piltdown Man. Anyway, Piltdown Man has got nothing to do with the age of the earth or what we think about how rocks were deposited. Whether Piltdown Man was a hoax or not, would not change the science of Geology in the slightest. If you told me of a fossil that scientists believed to be a transitional, and I threw Piltdown man out there, the intent would be obvious. Creationist hoaxes are discovered by scientists, but creationists keep on using them in every religious tract and at every opportunity. It’s because creationists can’t even pretend to do science without misleading laymen. Creationists have only got hoaxes. Nothing else. You repeating the complete untruth about uniformatists say millions of years passed between those layers is a very good example of that. You keep repeating something that surely is not true. Even when you have been pointed at the truth numerous times. Edited by Pressie, : Changed a few paragraphs Edited by Pressie, : Changed the spelling of the word wheter to whether.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Robert Beyers writes: Then how do you account for all those fossils of reptiles and mammals and land plants way below the k-t line? Why don't we find even one fossil of an elephant or a human below that line, but only way above?
Yet the finale thing is that the earth shows to have been covered in water to account for the layers of sedimentary rock in great depths below the k-t line
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
(Off topic)
Hi RAZD Please be patient. I'm reading. You have to realize that I'm not familiar with the Grand Canyon at all. Never seen a "rock" over there. I'm more familiar with the "rocks" and depositional environments of the Fish river Canyon in Namibia. Fish River Canyon - Wikipedia. However, I'm trying to have a look at the literature! Quite a few differences, but also a few similarities. I'm trying to get used to, for example, the geochronology, as the nomenclature we use is very different to American nomenclature. Another link to the Fish river Canyon http://www.mme.gov.na/...tractions/Fish%20River%20Canyon.pdf Edited by Pressie, : Had the word "one" just before "nomenclature". How it got there, I don't know. Getting old I guess. Changed it. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : Changed the word I spelled geoshronolgy to geochronology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Robert Byers writes: Then you can’t use the k-t boundary. It doesn’t exist for you. I'm saying the k-t boundary is the flood boundary.so millions of years is rejected. Robert Byers writes: And the areas with no accumulations of sediment? How do they tie in with a global flood? The evidence is that there are accumulations of sediment. Robert Byers writes: Lot’s of reasons. Unconformities, for one.
Yes layers are there but no reason to see them as otherwise then laid all together. Robert Byers writes: Any evidence for this bigger event? Just segregated flows within a bigger event. Robert Byers writes: There’s lots of lines with different fauna/flora assemblages above and below those lines. Above the line is indeed a different fauna/flora fossil assemblage. Robert Byers writes: Any evidence of this?
This because it was laid in a later event under like processes but not the great flood. Robert Byers writes: Not in real life. Just in your dreams.
it all works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Robert Byers writes: In the field we find lots of areas with no sedimentary accumulation. How does a global flood account for this? Potential evidence is exactly what is found in the field.Results in real life. Robert Byers writes: Pseudo-science. Then interpretations of how this fits in a biblical framework. Robert Byers writes: Some evidence for great moving wind is also great accumulations of sediment. How does this fit into the global flood? The evidence for great moving water is great accumulations of sediment. Robert Byers writes: And where there’s no sediment? How does it fit into a global flood? The sediment must be admitted by all to be there. Robert Byers writes: Lots of processes drive lithification. Great weights don’t necessarily do it alone: on the ocean floors we find very expansive areas of unlithified sediments on top of those basalts. Then it simply means to say the sediment was squeezed by the very great weight that previously laid it and into stone. Robert Byers writes: So far we’ve only found natural accumulations of sediment. What would the characteristics of unnatural accumulations of dirt be? Do you have an example of an unnatural one? Its potential evidence of a great flood moving about where one finds great unnatural accumulations of dirt. Edited by Pressie, : Changed the word "from" to "for" in my first sentence. Edited by Pressie, : Sorry, second sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Yes, Coccoliths show speciation in the fossil record. This is a good example Just a moment...
pnas writes: It shows evolution, extinction of some species, etc. This coincides well with the 10.8 Ma age for the split of these lineages based on analysis of coccolith morphology in the fossil record and supports the accuracy of our molecular-clock calibration. Sorry, this is off-topic and I should not have answered. Edited by Pressie, : Added last sentence Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024