The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

There is a thread already up an running for radiocarbon dating problems.See you there, as that is off-topic here.And be aware that several of us here are pretty well-versed in the subject, ranging from the archaeological, laboratory, and technical to the theoretical ends of things. But bring real evidence, not creationist nonsense.Edited by Coyote, : Formatting

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

There was an ice age.

Sure thing Mr. Administrator. I was just begining to have fun with this but you're the boss. I assure you I could commit massive overkill just like I could with the living fossils subject."Frequently" depends on (gasp!) ones frame of reference but I won't argue it here. I suppose you could call these examples 'frequent' though: [thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/clockRock2.jpg[/thumb=300]and this; a fossilized hat dating back a whole sixty yrs. [thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/p52_fossilHat.jpg[/thumb=300]The message is loud and clear: it doesn't take millions of years for fossils to form.Now, back to answering the questions.

'Well versed'; translation: mentally conditioned to see the trees but ignore the forest. They do it on almost every subject. I would call it Orwellian mind control.So how does an Orwellian radiocarbon date this one? [thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/1SANDLE-PRINT.jpg[/thumb=300]Quote: "In Utah, USA, in 1968, a piece of rock was opened revealing a fossil of a sandaled shoe which seemed to have crushed a trilobite, a sea creature which died out about 280 million years ago. The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite is 10.5 inches long by 3.5 inches wide with the heel being slightly more indented than the sole. Humans are thought to have been on the planet for between 1 and 2 million years, and well shaped footwear only in the last few thousand years."http://www.morticom.com/categoryweirdearthanomalies.htmI have seen several evolutionist 'explanations' of this one. Pitiful. Some of them even suggest that the heel marks are a natural causation and not heel marks at all. I laugh at that one every time I see it.But then, radiocarbon date this one, professor: [thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/fossilizedtooth.jpg[/thumb=300]A human tooth encased in coal. Hmm. Are our dates a bit out of whack?The coal mines of the world is just about the creationist best friend.

I know how it hurts to be confronted with direct observational evidence against what you believe. Don't you think it is time you faced the reality?I am disappointed in you. I do answer the posts when I can and if you were looking carefully you would see them. Check out the ones I answered to Coyote and Granny(?). But it takes times to answer so many people. But I suppose that to expect a break from those who hate what I believe in so much is probably too much to expect.

Your argument doesn't make sense. The fossils we find at Agate Springs are almost entirely Minocene era. We don't find significant (or any) fossils from other eras.

quote:

---

Or perhaps they were the last of the animal world with enough mobility to escape to higher ground the rising flood waters that was presently destroying the world?

---

By that logic, we should also see rapidly mobile dinosaurs as well. Palaeocastor is not exactly the fastest moving animal. Furthermore, based on your argument of mobility, how did very mobile and agile Dinosaurs not survive longer then extremely slow ground sloths?Coelophysis was an exceptionally mobile and agile organism. Why do we not see those in the pits as well?Are the fossils in Agata Springs sorted by density? Or are they all mixed up? Despite the lunatic rantings of creationists, denser items sink faster and therefore should be lower then less dense objects of similar size and shape. Does Agata Springs support sorting by density?Can you name a location in the world where fossils of various eras are all found in the same strata? Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

Yes, after the flood.

LOLAre you kidding? I've lived my entire life in the western U.S. and the only locations that look like that are the plains of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska, obviously.This sort of absurdness epitomizes Creationism. You write meaningless statements while at the same time glossing over all the evidence to the contrary.If you were truly interested in finding evidence for Creationism using the Agate Springs example, you would already know what the *evolutionists* think caused the deposition of fossils: arid climate, water hole, death, and entrainment and re-deposition of the bones during subsequent flooding events. The same sorts of events we see happening today and all through the fossil record.

Calypsis,You must realise by now that this is not a competition to see who can post the fastest. I think I can safely assume that I speak for all of us when I say that I wish you would slow down, read posts thoroughly, think about what they are saying, and take the time to post reasoned responses. You are ignoring a large part of what people are saying in your hurry to post more pictures. There's already a lot on the table for discussion -- you love that Gish Gallop and don't seem to understand the fundamental dishonesty of the technique.I've asked you some questions that I would appreciate an answer to.Where is the flood layer in the geologic column?Can you show that the fossil groups you've posted were caused by a global flood rather than localised events? Is it your belief that the fossil record should be jumbled all over the earth in such a way?I think it's important, before this thread goes much further, for you to tell us. Your answers will clarify your position.

While that is true, it does not address the issue of dating not to mention the sheer lack of fossils found in strata they don't belong in.Can you find us a modern rabbit fossil in the same strata with a small dinosaur era mammal? How about a modern dolphin in the same strata with ichthyosaurs? After all, those are similar size and shape with much of the same environment. If the flood occurred, we should see them in the same layers, unless you want to deny the basic properties of water.

OH! OH! Pick me ! Pick Me! I know the answer!!! WWOOOOHHHH No seriously, I understand your argument very well, and of course, there are two things to consider:- Is the fossil really pre-flood ? Remember that creationist contest the assumptions behind the dating methods, and a radio-carbon date of 10 300 years old for them does not mean it really is pre-flood. The strata in which it was found is very important to determine if it was pre-flood. And in the case it was found in a cave etc. of some sort, then from a creationists perspective it is definitely post-flood (as cavemen fossils are post-flood in the creationist model if I remember correctly)- Even if the age is correct, the false assumption is that all the current mtDNA lineage should come from 'noah's female kin'. This is not necessarily true, since Noah's sons also had wives, which weren't there own sisters most probably, and so we already have here multiple pre-flood mtDNA lineage that got to be passed down.I saw you make this argument several times, maybe even every times a flood topic comes up. The argument is valid, but one, or possibly two, of the premises are false.PS. I know it was a test for Calypsis4, but I gotta help him a bit.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

We do. I did. The following is a photo of me near the painted desert in Arizona.This is me with a helper examining a fossil footprint bed over a vast field that diplayed literally thousands of footprints, including what looked like human footprints. Below are one of what could have been a human foot with the toes sticking inside of the dino print: [thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/100_2920.jpg[/thumb=300]From appearances the tracks made me think of a big crowd of animals scurrying in every direction. [thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/100_2920.jpg[/thumb=300]What was most interesting to me to find out that ten yrs earlier some creation scientists had visited the same site and come to the conclusion that at least three of the footprints observable at the site were human. I didn't know that until later.Even more interesting was that about a half mile away and 80 or more feet up on the plateau were water ripple marks on both sides of the road that looked like this: [thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Aug08254.jpg[/thumb=200]
From: a Rim of Time by Stephen Trimble.Actually, these are ripple marks found at high elevation in the Summervile formation in Utah. Such ripple marks are found at almost any elevation in the world. That is because the flood covered the entire world at one time a few milleniums ago.

"PS. I know it was a test for Calypsis4, but I gotta help him a bit."Actually, I didn't see it until just now. I can't keep up no matter how fast I go.Thanks, you were correct on that.

I ask; You reply; I have to say, I can't see where you falsify anything. This is a question. You can't falsify anything with a question. You can only falsify something if you actually have some answers.For the record, the Niobrara and it's many ephemeral tributaries are the proposed explanation for the erosion . This kind of erosion can still be seen today.

quote:

---

Though the Niobrara River is the only continuously flowing water in the park there are several ephemeral tributaries to the river. Tributaries are streams that run into and contribute water to a river or larger stream. Ephemeral streams are streams that only flow after a major rain event and can be identified by dry channels in depressions between hills. These are the types of areas in which flash floods can occur that cause death and destruction of property. Though the streams rarely flow and do not flow for very long, they are erosive, sometimes carrying large amounts of sediment to the river. Sediment, soil and sand material that is suspended in the flow of the water deposits itself when the flow slows down, shrinks in volume, or spreads over a greater area.

---

What you refer to as a "tiny little creek" is a cause of erosion when it is in flood. This is your view. Opinions don't falsify anything either. They are especially worthless when they involve religious claims that are contradicted by numerous lines of convergent evidence, as the flood story is.I'm sorry, I don't see that you have provided me with any reason to believe your fanciful stories of a worldwide flood. Both of the erosion mechanisms, ephemeral streams and river meanders/oxbows, can be seen today. You haven't falsified the mainstream explanation for the bonebeds.Mutate and Survive

You either did not read my post, or you are deliberately being dishonest.You provided absolutely no evidence that mobile dinosaurs were able to survive the flood long enough to congregate to die as the Minocene era organisms did. Providing mere fossilized footprints (of which we have many) does not support your claims.And your interpretation of "human" print is very similar to the various hoaxes.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.htmlAll your ripple marks suggest (especially since that rock is limestone or other sedimentary rock) is that such rock was at the bottom of the ocean. It takes exceptionally long times to produce that kind of wear and tear on hard rock. You can try this yourself. Get an aquarium, take smooth rock, set up an agitator and let it run for a year. You will not get the same results as the pictures you show. But if you let that rock sit for millions of years, you will.What makes you think that deliberately ignoring the majority of my post makes your reply meaningful or even relevant?