Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

quote:

---

No problem. Again as with all things fossilized it matters how prevelent they are. Grasses and mammals simply lived in restricked areas while another evirorment dominated. As is the case today in North America where secluded places have the remains of the glaciel world that once dominated but not these plants only survive where the invaders could not come.

---

What evidence do you have that they were restricted in any sense? Secondly, we can find these restricted "glacial world" fossils but we have yet to find one blade of grass or one grass pollen grain below the KT boundary.What you are using are ad hoc explanations, made up fantasies that are not supported by evidence and only used to support a story that has been falsified by other data. The very fact that you have to rely on ad hoc rationalizations points to the weakness of your position. From Wikipedia: The addition of restricted areas for mammals, grass, and any other anomaly fits the description above. The only reason you are claiming that grasses and mammals were restricted is to save your tenuous theory, not because that is where the evidence points.I might also add that within the fossil record grass eating herbivores don't show up in the fossil record until grasses appear. So not only were the grass blades and grass pollen sorted but the animals were also sorted by what they ate (and their DNA which I have mentioned in other posts). This is something that a gigantic, world wide flood of unimaginable power would be incapable of doing.

Thanks Bill for your studied responce. Lets see what you got.First I kayak on an geological line here in Ontario where sedimentay meets igneous and metamorhic rock with no glaciel cover.
I am aware that all rock does not show destruction. I said almost and meant sedimentary.
Indeed all rock shows either being created by the collecting and pressurizing effect of the flood. Sed. or the destruction of continental drift (or I prefer Redeye)of strecting and crashing together.
Indeed the idea of any rock being created gradually is so opposite to anyone who actually observes it and explains the retreat of modern geologists to invoke themselves events. T(Though they try to expand the time needed)
Bill brings up about paleosoils. Creationists love paleosoils for they demonstrate that it was a sudden event that fossilized these soils and not gradual accumulation that geologists tried to say in the past.Finally once again it must be insisted geology that deals with past events is a subject of history and not science. Is history science? No. And yet historians do deal with evidence for acts and motives.
Historical geology by definiation can not test or be falsified for the evet can not be replicated. Thats why evolutionary geology can be assailed by creationists or anyone who has another idea of what happened. Science is not just another word for studied field. It is a process that is toprove its point.
All the best

quote:

---

Indeed the idea of any rock being created gradually is so opposite to anyone who actually observes it and explains the retreat of modern geologists to invoke themselves events.

---

Are you really this dense, or are you just brave? Shale, for example, is made up of condensed FINE silts. We have OBSERVED the slow accumulation of fine silts, and they take a long time to accrue in the thicknesses we see in the geologic column. Second, we have limestone whose accumulation has also been OBSERVED to be exceedingly slow, but yet we still have areas with hundreds of feet of limestone. Sorry, but observation is on the side of slow accumulation. Even after the absurdly slow time that these sediments take to accumulate, they then have to be moved into a position to be compacted, or in some cases, to be put under extreme heat and pressure to yield metamorphic rocks. Sorry, but slow is the name of the game and there is no evidence otherwise, that is unless you actually want to start using OBSERVATIONS instead of wild fantasy.

quote:

---

Finally once again it must be insisted geology that deals with past events is a subject of history and not science. Is history science? No.

---

Can we use science to understand the natural history of an area? YES!! What do you think geologists are using, charades? They are using observations to test hypotheses, exactly what science is about. And again you miss the point that forensic science is just that, science. You form a hypothesis (John Doe was the murder) and you test the hypothesis (John Doe's fingerprints were on the murder weapon). It is the evidence within the crime scene that reduces the tentativity that John Doe is guilty. The same processes are used in geology (and all of the sciences) whether you want to believe it or not. Of course we could be like you and ignore evidence and instead rely on our vivid imaginations and fairytales.

quote:

---

Finally once again it must be insisted geology that deals with past events is a subject of history and not science.

---

And, once again, I refer to my handy desk dictionary to see how science is defined. And, lo, it appears that you have, once again, made up a definition of your own.1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.

​

2. Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world.

​

3. Systematized knowledge of any kind.

​

4. Any skill that reflects a precise application of facts or principles. Please show where geology fails all of these definitions.

Yeah. A "sudden event" buried a couple of dozen soil horizons, each with root traces, etc., between layers of "flood" sediment. Like a German torte, it has so many layers.You're making this up as you go, Robert.

You've missed some things Robert.

Is Robert a troll? We see nonsense claims, argument by "because I say so" and refusal to deal with objections to his wild claims, as well as major inconsistencies in his claims.As such, there is nothing meaningful in his posts, nor in debating them.For me, I am done. Whether it is inane stupidity or deliberate dishonesty, robert brings nothing to the issues.This message has been edited by Steen, 07-11-2004 01:21 AM

I don't think so. He doesn't seem to be causing people to jump off their seats. I think he's just a newbie in the debate world. Give him a little time and I'm sure he'll come out of the ditch.

---

The Laminator

​

quote:

---

You brought up the example in John about one third of stars falling to earth. Well this is probably the one place where the Bible indicates there was another event that afted the universe. After the fall but before the flood a cosmic war took place. This is where all the great meterities on earth and other planets and moons came from. Also why the galaxy has such mess everywhere. The stars did fall to earth perhaps most not connecting but many did and there is evidence always coming to light now. These meterites were later filled by sedimentary rocks from the flood. And since the meteors would of surely killed animals and yet there was no death before the flood then it must of been after the flood.
I will in a few days be kayaking around an important geologic line in ontario. Where pre-cambrian rock just starts to be overlain by sedimentary rock just before glaciel mess joins in. A special place so I anm very aware Mike of Rock sequence and have read a great deal about to assure myself it fits with creationist models. It does and in fact shows evolutionist models to truly bne strange in thier efforts to bring great lengths of time to account for rock creation or manipulation.
All the best

---

Hi Robert,
You and I have the same faith, but your interpretation of the third of the stars is picture language for the Devil and his angels being cast down to Earth. It has nothing to do with Geology. The creation story in Genesis chapter 1 is a poem (it even rhymes in its original language) of why God rested on the seventh day and made it holy (set apart). It certainly is not a scientific document.
I cannot agree on where planets, moons and meteorites came from with you because all the bible has to say on the matter is ..he created the stars also..
Christianity is a reasonable faith and I think that these kind of assumptions only cause bad witness to the truth and the fine fabric of what God made over millions of years to the most crucial point in mankind's history to reconcile us to him.
To quote Albert Einstein (who was a believer) "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
To the non believers in this forum, one can analyse a painting by the materials, the paint compostion, thickness of strokes, but until you see the art behind it, you miss the whole point

quote:

---

As such, there is nothing meaningful in [Robert Byer's] posts, nor in debating them.

---

I will politely disagree. There are quite a few lurkers on this site. I am guessing that there are quite a few creationists who lurk here as well, and there science education level may be equivalent to Mr. Byers. Would it be better to give the impression that Mr. Byers poses unanswerable questions? We would only be feeding the egos of creationists and letting them claim that scientists are afraid of them. However, by showing the scientific errors that creationists make it might cause fence sitters to delve into the informatin and evidence themselves. I feel this is the real drive behind most of the evo posters here, to get creationists to seriously weigh the evidence that science forms its theories on. Mr. Byers on the other hand probably equates looking at scientific evidence with satanic music. He might feel that it will lead him away from God and into the hands of Satan.

quote:

---

Christianity is a reasonable faith and I think that these kind of assumptions only cause bad witness to the truth and the fine fabric of what God made over millions of years to the most crucial point in mankind's history to reconcile us to him.

---

This is truly quotable. This is the point that almost every creationist misses. Science is not the boogy man. Science is not trying to lead people away from God. Science is a tool, not theology. Great post Mike.

Excellent point. Science gives us the "what," but religion gives us the "why." These two are not competitors, but rather are complementary to each other.

Been kayaking the Canadian shield. Okay NN you bring a important point in the geologic record that historical geologists always misunderstand. The fossilization was a sudden event overwhelming areas on the planet. Therefore one would expect to find different creatures in different levels. For they represent colonies and evirorments frozen suddenly. One replitie colony done a hill three miles from another reptile colony higher up. This is a predictable thing from a creatiuonist model. While evolutionist geologists must scramble with unlikely senarieos about fossilization events separated by millions of years and yet in the same place.Also my bringing up about restricted areas is only to give a reasonable answer to why this and that is not found under the k-t line.
In fact the pre flood world was totally different from the PRE-FALL world that God created. This is traditional Christian/Protestant doctrine.

Yes I was on the canadian shield where sedimentary rock meets basement rock. Would you believe at only my present age of 39 did I find out everyone says trronnto (whatever). i though only I got it wrong.The Bible uses the word star for anthing in the universe unless otherwise stated. Even Mars would be a star. The stars coming to earth need not of hit in thier full size but just fragments of them. The point is however the Bible ancipapated the present finding of hugh holes on eath that must of been post-Fall and pre-Flood. And explains the choas in the universe at present because of a comic war.

quote:

---

The Bible uses the word star for anthing in the universe unless otherwise stated. Even Mars would be a star. The stars coming to earth need not of hit in thier full size but just fragments of them.

---

So, in other words, you don't believe in a literal translation of Genesis.

quote:

---

The point is however the Bible ancipapated the present finding of hugh holes on eath that must of been post-Fall and pre-Flood.

---

All 170 of them? And nothing in the bible about huge meteor strikes like the one that wiped out the dinosaur. You would think that some civilization would write about at least one of the 170 massive meteor strikes that are recorded in the geologic record.