Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8105 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-31-2014 11:43 PM
136 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Epee
Post Volume:
Total: 733,661 Year: 19,502/28,606 Month: 2,773/2,305 Week: 415/563 Day: 70/109 Hour: 4/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Just being real
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(3)
Message 134 of 320 (631400)
08-31-2011 9:02 PM


Reply to Panda's comment
Panda: The bible claims that there was a global flood. Yet it is a known archaeological fact that there was no global flood..

First I would point out how interesting I find it that most who reject a global flood, overlook the fact that fossils require an anoxic environment in which to even form. And that this type of environment usually only occurs in nature, in rapid sedimentary deposit situations. Which of course only occur in "flood" conditions. Therefore I would predict that had the Earth (which is 70% covered in water now) truly once been covered in a world wide global flood (WWGF), that it's crust would have layer upon layer of sediments that would be filled with millions of fossilized dead things...
.
.
.
Did you know that the Earth's crust is comprised of layer upon layer of sediments that are filled with millions of fossilized dead things?

The typical uniformitarian geologist, of course, believes that these layers were laid down over millions of years. But have you ever considered the fact that in most of these strata layers, "surface imprints" which have been fossilized, are common? Features like ripple patterns, animal tracks and rain drop impressions? Under usual conditions these features are quickly destroyed by normal erosion and life. In order for these types of impressions to be preserved, the next sediment layer must be laid down very fast, and the next layer, and the next, and so forth.

Secondly, there's often burrows preserved and fossilized that are oriented starting from lower strata and moving upward. These are like what you would expect had an animal been buried by the sediment and tried to dig its way out. They are very different from the normal type which are oriented in all directions.

A third thing to notice while looking at the geologic record, is that it consists mostly of "rocks" but very few paleo-soils. Normally, poorly consolidated rocks aren't considered to be  made of ancient materials  that have ever been actual soils. Evolutionary thinking in geology says that land  surfaces supported an abundance of life for hundreds of millions of years. So where's all the paleo-soils in the record that supported that life? It's not there!

Fourth, consider what we see evidence in the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon area. Uniformitarian geologists date this sandstone to be around 270 myrs old. It was believed to be an ancient desert. If you didn't know, the Coconino covers more than 100,000 square miles. However fossilized amphibians tracks  have been found in the sandstone. This is evidence that it was laid down by water. Almost all geologists would have drawn this same conclusion if it weren't for the implications it poses. The amounts and movements of water can easily be calculated by the amount of sand deposited. Calculations of the amount of water volume needed to create the Coconino with its undulates (sand dunes) would require water at 100 foot depth, moving at a speed of three to five feet per second. Water moving at that speed and depth has never been observed, not even at open sea. Which means it would take an unprecedented storm of great magnitude  to create the Coconino sandstone layers.

Fifth, we can further conclude that the Coconino  was not laid down under a dry desert condition, by noticing that directly under it is a "blade edged" thin layer of Hermit shale. The shale had to have uplifted at least high enough to create a desert. But if that had occurred then normal erosion processes wouldn't have left the top of the layer so virtually flat as is observed today. The top of the shale exhibits no signs of erosion. How's that possible if it remained exposed to the surface for sand to begin to accumulate 10 myrs later?

Sixth, these blade edged flat layers, such as the Hermit, completely diminishes the idea of long passages of time between  deposits,  (regardless of what index fossils are found in them). Contact layers between rock layer units show the same knife edged characteristics and are seen just about everywhere. There's really only two reasonable scenarios that explain these characteristics. Either continuous and rapid  deposition took place with almost instant current shifts, or deposition after spaces of  sheet erosion from rapidly flowing water at an equal depth over a huge area that had equally eroding sediment taking place in all areas. Either case would need the WWGF scenario described in the Bible.

Seventh, consider the existence of polystrate fossils in coal beds for example, which are often separated by layers of lime stone. Each layer is usually said to be several million years old. But this conclusion falls apart by the hundreds of polystrate fossils (like vertically fossilized trees) which pierce through the various layers. (Sometimes several layers) These fossils are so common that they are often a real hazard to coal miners who can suddenly be crushed when one dislodges and falls on him in the mines. These fossils are found in coal world wide. The obvious question of course is, how did the upper portions of these trees remain exposed for several million years while waiting for the other layers to gradually be  deposited in around them to preserve them? The fact of the matter is that the accumulation of the different layers must have actually been at least faster than it takes for wood to decay. They have even found animal fossils that penetrate more than one layer of coal.

Eighth, consider how at the Green River Formation, many fossilized catfish have been found with skin and soft parts preserved.  Many are even oriented to traverse through several laminations of shale deposits. The kind of deposits that Uniformitarians normally interpret as being representative of several season cycles of sediment. How's it possible for the upper portions to survive several season cycles before being covered?

Ninth is the lack of bio-turbation between conforming layers of strata. If millions of years really took place between  the deposits of conformable layers, why are their surfaces so scarce of millions of years of life? By that I mean things like burrows, root formations, etc... are mostly missing from the record. How could large land masses have existed for millions of years virtually untouched by life, with life being so abundant?

I'll stop here for now. We can continue when ever you wish.


Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by jar, posted 08-31-2011 9:14 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 136 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2011 9:21 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 137 by Panda, posted 08-31-2011 9:22 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 138 by Coyote, posted 08-31-2011 9:34 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 09-01-2011 7:16 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 196 by Boof, posted 09-05-2011 11:56 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 151 of 320 (631475)
09-01-2011 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by jar
08-31-2011 9:14 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
RE-If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support.-

That sounds like a reasonable enough expectation. But don't go putting all your eggs into one basket my friend. The problem is that there is something wrong that needs to be addressed. During the mathematical process of evaluating the genetic markers in any population and extrapolating backwards to the date of the original parent group, they cannot account in the equation the great grandparent effect. What I mean by that is that in current calculations they use current time estimates for a "generation" and don't consider the fact that the life span in animals and people exiting the Ark were much longer than they are today. That means that several generations would have co-existed within a single procreation time frame and the genes from great great grandpa would be introduced back into the equation many times over. This would screw up the calculations dramatically and make it virtually impossible to accurately predict when any given species population actually "bottle necked."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by jar, posted 08-31-2011 9:14 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by jar, posted 09-01-2011 9:40 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 160 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2011 11:22 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 152 of 320 (631476)
09-01-2011 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Panda
08-31-2011 9:22 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
These surface imprints are common? Well, so are floods.
You have provided an argument that areas of land are often flooded.
I doubt anyone would argue against that.

My understanding is that it's because in normal flooding conditions like today, there is no rapid burial with a source of gentle blanketing sediments all mixed with cementing agents, without which trace fossils cannot be preserved. Ripples can only be preserved when covered by a different type of sediment. For example ripples in coarse sand were overlain by a finer silty sand and red oxidized mud.

Multiple layers of ripples, and the variations observed in their alignments between the layers indicates they were laid down by sediment laying currents of varying strength and therefore producing the variation in particle sizes between layers that we observe. The typical local flood events just don't produce these kinds of features.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Panda, posted 08-31-2011 9:22 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Panda, posted 09-01-2011 8:36 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2011 11:14 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 171 of 320 (631591)
09-01-2011 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
09-01-2011 7:16 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
...so perhaps we could narrow the focus. What do you feel is the most significant evidence for a global flood four or five thousand years ago?

Hello Percy, good to be chatting with you again. Actually I'm quite fond of all the evidences I mentioned. I feel that just as a preponderance of the evidence in a court room assists in swaying the scales of blind justice one way or another, likewise I think they are all very relevant to the discussion. I do like Panda's approach though and think it will simplify things to discuss each, one at a time.

What do you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 09-01-2011 7:16 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2011 9:12 PM Just being real has responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 172 of 320 (631592)
09-01-2011 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Panda
09-01-2011 8:36 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Brad: The typical local flood events just don't produce these kinds of features.

Panda: I see no evidence to support this conclusion. If you could provide some evidence to back up these claims I would be very interested.-

Your asking me to provide evidence for something that does "not" occur? This would be similar to me expecting someone to provide evidence to support the claim that God does not exist. A negative statement cannot be proven, it can only be dis-proven. That means if you know of just one example that shows how normal flood conditions (not catastrophic events like a 4 or above VEI volcano) could produce fossilized surface ripples, then I'd love to here it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Panda, posted 09-01-2011 8:36 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Panda, posted 09-01-2011 9:51 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2011 12:23 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 173 of 320 (631593)
09-01-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by jar
09-01-2011 9:40 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
The age of folk or how long they lived is totally irrelevant to the genetic marker. It does not matter how long folk lived although there is absolute proof that all the animals lived just about as long as they do today going back way before Adam's time.

Really? I didn't know they could tell by looking at a fossilized bone exactly how old something was when it died. Or maybe you are implying that they could look at a sample of my DNA and genetically tell how old all my great great great grandparents were? Seriously though, I'd like to see the research work that demonstrates this "absolute proof." If you would kindly link us to something?

Your nonsense would simply make the genetic marker even more obvious. The fact is, the marker is not seen.

I am not doubting that it is "not seen," I am doubting that it is possible to see. I am doubting that you can "genetically" tell how old a species is or has existed. The most you can do is try and extrapolate figures from population growth backwards to a possible bottleneck, but then the figures become extremely off when you consider the fact that you can not count generations of a species in a simple linear fashion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by jar, posted 09-01-2011 9:40 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by jar, posted 09-05-2011 2:22 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 178 of 320 (631801)
09-03-2011 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Panda
09-01-2011 9:51 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
RE- A negative statement can be proven. If I asked you to prove that a cat does not go "woof" every time you hit it - it would only require 1 cat and a stick to prove that negative statement true. -

"Silly rabbit... Trix are for kids." You just proved my point. If the requirement is just to prove that that one particular cat does not go woof when struck, then one strike only proves that it didn't go woof that one time. I would have to have been present all of its entire life, for every second of its life prior to the experiment, and then have to beat it to death to prove it never went woof.

If the requirement is to prove that no cats go "woof" when you hit them, then hitting one cat would only prove that that one cat does not go woof (provided that he didn't of course). I would have to be present for every second of every cats life prior, and I would need to strike every cat in the entire universe until they were all dead before we could conclusively prove that cats do not go woof when you hit them. Which of course would be impossible for me to do. However all it would take is one cat going woof, one time when I hit it, to prove the negative statement was false.

RE-You have claimed that localised flooding doesn't create ripples. How do you know? What research has been done to show this is true?-

My statement in post 152 started with "My understanding is..." thereby implying that to the best of my knowledge it was true. Not that I had knowledge of the fossils left by every single flood that ever occurred in the entire universe. I know when I make a negative statement that I am only basing it on my own limited knowledge, and all it takes is one example otherwise by someone to disprove it.

RE-If you accept that volcanoes create ripples - how do you know which ripples are caused by a global flood and which are caused by volcanoes?.-

I am not even aware if volcanoes create ripple surface fossils or not. I am however aware that a volcano the size of Mt St. Helen or larger can at least create flood conditions which in turn created the exact same kinds of strata layering found world wide which (had it not been observed occurring quickly) would have been interpreted by uniformitarians as millions of years worth of strata. In fact, with most of the layers having already turned to stone, core samples were even sent to uniformitarian geologists to analyze without telling them where they came from, and that was precisely how they interpreted them.

The point with my "volcano" comment is that VEI 4 volcano's are not common enough to account for the vast surface ripple fossils found world wide. And if common local floods can not be shown to produce them, then a good hypothesis is that they are the result of one world wide catastrophic event.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Panda, posted 09-01-2011 9:51 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Panda, posted 09-03-2011 8:30 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 179 of 320 (631803)
09-03-2011 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by crashfrog
09-01-2011 9:12 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
we'd like not to be accused of ignoring the best evidence for the Noaic flood in order to attack the weakest.

Very well then, I am quite fond of the polystrate fossils in coal beds, and the Green river catfish fossils.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2011 9:12 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 09-03-2011 11:19 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 182 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-03-2011 1:09 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 186 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-04-2011 11:22 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 181 of 320 (631827)
09-03-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Percy
09-03-2011 11:19 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
RE- So coal beds are flood deposits?-

Yes, as I believe most of the strata layers are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 09-03-2011 11:19 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-03-2011 1:11 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 09-03-2011 1:22 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 191 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2011 5:35 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 194 of 320 (632141)
09-05-2011 11:00 PM


Percy: What is it about coal beds that suggests they are flood deposits from a global flood?

I would say that since coal beds and oil deposits have been shown not to require the millions of years of time originally thought needed to form, and that since the plant and animal debris needed to form them had to have been buried quickly, this in itself is a good indicator. Also as I said earlier, the polystrate fossils found in them are another good clue to the fact that they did not form slowly.

Since we are talking about a world wide catastrophic event, I think expecting evidence to show up in various forms and to be accumulative rather than singular is more of a reasonable approach. That being said, I think that if there really were in fact a geologically recent WWGF, in almost every geographic region there would be some feature present that is only best explained by a catastrophic flood.

Panda: If you are just making an unfounded statement or putting forward your hypothesis then that is not evidence.

I make no secret that I am riding on the shoulders of much greater men than I who have much more knowledge than I in those fields. So it's not just little o'l me taking some wild stab at it, but rather an observation by qualification. Again Panda, it is a negative statement, and if you know it is false, all it would take is one example to demonstrate so.

Butterflytyrant: The only sites that seem to mention polystrate fossils are creationist sites.

That is odd. The very first site that shows up when I Google the word is this (non-creationist) one from Wikipedia. But I guess if a creationist mentions something it must not be real ...huh?

Butterflytyrant: I asked my brother (coal industry 15 years), a geologist friend of the family (mining industry 20 years, coal for 10 years) and one of my scientist friends (coal industry 8 years) if they had ever seen one of these fossils. None of them had. I mentioned your claim. The general consensus is that your claim is ridiculous... ...Considering it was a world wide flood, they should be all over the place. Australia has huge coal reserves, in every state, where are the Australian examples?

Again a very interesting puzzle... considering that same Wikipedia article says:

quote:
Entire "fossil forests" of such upright fossil tree trunks and stumps have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata

Obviously someone besides us little o'l creationists are aware of the fossils. Here is a map of some other locations they have been excavated in "Australia."


Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-05-2011 11:51 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-06-2011 12:42 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 199 by Pressie, posted 09-06-2011 1:23 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 203 by Panda, posted 09-06-2011 7:26 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 200 of 320 (632167)
09-06-2011 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Pressie
09-06-2011 1:23 AM


He didn’t even mention the word “layers” (I might be mistaken, could you direct me to the word “layer” in that article?)

Or you can go back to the article, press ctrl - F and find it yourself. My reference to the article was meant only to provide a basic understanding for Percy in the thinking of creationists as to how coal beds suggest a global flood. If you were expecting it to be a highly scientific peer reviewed composition then scratch and sniff here >>----> . <----<< because that's about how much I care about your expectations.

If you are referring to processes like the Fischer –Tropsch process, used in my country to produce, amongst others, a petroleum substitute, they are not oil deposits.

No actually I was referring to something much simpler. The carbon 14 testing of things that should not possess any carbon 14 (like coal), and finding very significant amounts. Which make it impossible for them to be more than 50 k years old. And regarding oil, yes I was referring to the artificial production of petroleum, not sure if mine is the process you mentioned or not (I'll have to look it up and get back with you), but a side note, I find it interesting that you so easily wave away the fact that artificially produced petroleum does in fact demonstrate that it does not require large amounts of time.

Look at it this way, a man is found covered in blood, holding a knife over the female body of a stabbing victim. Investigators discover the man has a substantial monetary motivation, as the dead woman was his estranged wife who was in the process of a nasty divorce with him. Witnesses heard the man threaten to kill the victim on numerous occasions. The man also has an arrest history for assaulting the victim on three occasions. The man claims he arrived to find her already stabbed and got the blood on him while trying to perform CPR. He also says he pulled the knife out of her and didn't stab her. However He is right handed and there is no blood in the palm of his right hand. Likewise there is no blood on the handle of the knife where his right hand palm print is found (the only prints found). The accumulation of the evidence points to the man as the murderer. However a defense attorney can dissect each and every one of those pieces of evidence presented, and find legitimate separate reasons for their existence. That's what he gets paid for. He is not at all motivated to find the truth. Only to defend his position.

Our clues are coal that we know formed from vegetation being covered "by something", and requiring a lot of pressure, and contains significant amounts of C14, and pulverized by hundreds of forests of pollystrate tree fossils that pierce through "strata" that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart. Your welcome to explain away all of that like a good defense attorney, or you can at least be open minded enough to admit that it seems to implicates a very obvious culprit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Pressie, posted 09-06-2011 1:23 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-06-2011 7:19 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 204 by Panda, posted 09-06-2011 7:36 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 205 by Pressie, posted 09-06-2011 7:43 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 210 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 9:20 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 201 of 320 (632168)
09-06-2011 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Butterflytyrant
09-05-2011 11:51 PM


So the Wiki page itself is not a Creationist page. It just parrots Creationist statements and advises the readers that the information is typically only found in creationist publications.

No the Wikipedia article does not say that the fossils information are "only found in creationist publications" but just that the "term" polystrate is normally only found there. It was in fact a term coined in the late 60's by a Dutch geologist (a creationist-so what) named N.A. Rupke. There is nothing mystical or scary about the term. He coined the term by taking the word poly (meaning more than one) and joined it with the word strata, to form the word poly-strata (crossing through many strata) fossils. Nothing here to get your panties in a wad over. The fact of the matter the article clearly says the fossils are very common when you seemed to imply to the contrary.

quote:
Entire "fossil forests" of such upright fossil tree trunks and stumps have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata

I refuted that these fossils are "so common that they are often a real hazard to coal miners who can suddenly be crushed when one dislodges and falls on him in the mines.".

Well perhaps the source that I got the information from is older and refers to mining practices long since improved upon. Yipee... your friends and family are safe. Let's move on past the trivia to something relevant okay.

I refute your claim that they are common.

Hey don't refute me refute Wikipedia when they say: "Entire fossil forests of such upright fossil tree trunks and stumps have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata."

I agree that Wikipedia is not reliable to use as scientific peer reviewed evidence, but in general definitions and explanations of terms, I have no problems with them at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-05-2011 11:51 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-06-2011 8:44 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 215 of 320 (632292)
09-06-2011 9:05 PM


Taking a short break
..Hello every...one. Since there seems to be such a problem with the polystrate fossils, (do they exist, what do "real" geologists call them, are they common, whatthey...........do or don't prove? etc...) and since we seem to even have a disagreement with what the majority of geologists even say about strata, I've decided too...step back take a deep breath, and address each one of these issues with some detail in one post. So lets take a break, give me about 48 -- 72 hours and I...will be posting here again.
..Thank you...Brad
Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Panda, posted 09-06-2011 9:14 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 217 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-06-2011 9:48 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 220 by Pressie, posted 09-07-2011 12:36 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 221 of 320 (633003)
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Polystrate fossils
Many Geologists say that the strata layers of the geologic column are representative of millions of years of time. In this discussion I will refer to them as uniformitarian geologists, but with the understanding that not all conventional geologists are “strict” uniformitarians. In opposition is a group of geologists who believe that the strata was laid down during a world wide geologically recent global flood. I will refer to them in this discussion as creation geologists or YEC geologists.

Fossils of single living organisms such as trees (AKA Polystrate fossils) are commonly found piercing through several layers of these strata. These tree fossils (AKA kettlebottoms in mining) are so common in coal beds that they are even a real danger to miners who have been injured or killed by them dislodging and falling on them. They are common enough that in 2000 they came up for review by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. And I even found an article as recent as 2007 in which one fell and killed Brent Reynolds in a mine in Kentucky.

The question is, how can forests of trees, dinosaurs, fish and other organisms remain protruding from one layer of strata while waiting the enormously long periods of time for the other layers to eventually cover them and then to later fossilize? Some here have purposed that the organisms could have mummified, remained upright and then slowly been covered by strata to later fossilize. I suppose this might be plausible, except for the big problem of natural mummification being such a rare event. I also can’t seem to find any examples of existing organisms in such a “mummified” state, hanging around for “believed” millions of years (partially exposed) and thought to still be undergoing such a process. The examples of petrified trees given before, that from time to time are exposed and then re-covered up again, are clearly eroding on the upper portions that are exposed. 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.

Some of you have already agreed with me that the tree fossils demonstrate a rapid deposition of the strata. This tells me that the only point we are really seeming to be in dispute over is, if they pose a problem for uniformitarian geological thinking. Contrary to claims to the otherwise, most creationists are not ignorant at all to the interpretations of Dawson made a hundred years ago about the fossils. We just think they are as problematic today as they were then. These fossils are often observed crossing through layers of different types of rock and different coal deposits. Are you going to suggest that in those areas where fossils cut through several layers of strata, that they were buried quickly, but in areas with the exact same rock and strata and no polystrate fossils are observed, each layer represents millions of years?

{I've deemed the following green box material to be, at best, marginally on-topic. It belongs somewhere in the "Dates and Dating" forum. In this topic, be cautious about replying to this material - Adminnemooseus

Which then brings us to the question of 14C being found present in coal samples. It was suggested that the creationists doing the testing were dimwitted and did not account for contaminants and other factors or possibly that they just overlooked them. It was also even suggested that the "coal" that was tested is grossly exaggerated, and was actually only "charcoal."

First I would point out that in an article by Dr. Baumgardner, he clearly spells out in detail how they painstakingly took into account any possible contaminants, and the 14C readings they took were completely accurate.

Second, the claim that charcoal is the “coal” that was tested is blatantly false. In a previous article he clearly says where the samples where obtained from:

quote:
The first set of samples consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Put off-topic part of message into green box; Add message.


Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-11-2011 11:46 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 224 by Coyote, posted 09-11-2011 11:59 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 225 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2011 12:00 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 226 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2011 12:02 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 227 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2011 12:03 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 228 by Pressie, posted 09-12-2011 1:10 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 229 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 1:25 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 230 by Boof, posted 09-12-2011 1:46 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 233 by Panda, posted 09-12-2011 5:47 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 234 by Pressie, posted 09-12-2011 6:20 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 235 by Granny Magda, posted 09-12-2011 8:05 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 238 by Percy, posted 09-12-2011 8:57 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 223 of 320 (633008)
09-11-2011 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Adminnemooseus
09-11-2011 11:46 PM


Delete

Edited by Just being real, : Deletion


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-11-2011 11:46 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014