So, you asserted that the idea that the area where Dinosaur National Monument could only have been a sea prior to the Flood if there had bene more time than your YEC views allow.
Um I don't recall saying that. It COULD have been a sea I suppose but I believe the evidence that is interpreted as a sea is better interpreted as the result of the Flood.
And your defence of that assertions is:
quote:
Because it is simply a layer of marine flotsam and jetsam which fits the Flood.
Now lets point out the illogic here:
1) That is simply your assumption - you have yet to produce any evidence for it
Same evidence the Dinosaur Monument has. Same evidence you have. What other evidence is necessary? There's nothing illogical about it. If you think dinosaur fossils are going to get packed like sardines into one burial place a corpse at a time over millions of years there's DEFINITELY nothing illogical about my assumption. Besides, it's not an assumption, it's an educated guess.
2) There is no way that I could know in advance that you could make that assumption.
I wouldn't expect you to.
3) Even if I knew that you would make that assumption it does not mean that alternate ideas are inconsistent with the Flood or require long ages.
I'm really lost here. What are you saying?
I'm afraid it is all too typical of your arguing - having jumped to a false conclusion, you would rather throw up any excuse - even something that is obvoiously irrelevant as you just did rather than admit that you made a mistake.
What "mistake?" Was a mistake mentioned? I honestly don't know what you are talking about.
In my last post I asked if you could produce evidence for your particular scenario over the current view. I suggested - for the second time - that you produced evidence that the river channels really were drainage channels for Flood water. Rather than produce any evidence we simply see an assertion that you are right and the professional geologists are wrong.
What ARE you talking about? There IS no other evidence than the evidence evolutionists would refer to. No other evidence is needed. Evos interpret it one way, Floodists another.
So the claim is simply worthless - because we could with (at least !) equal justice claim that you have coopted evidence of an old Earth into your Flood claims.
Well, if you want to, but in your direction it's really more of a stretch. The evidence really IS consistent with a Flood but it takes a few extra steps to think it into an Old Earth scenario.
For someone who recently begged for fairness you seem very determined to demand that your opinions should be given special credence. Why not show a little fairness yourself ?
I honestly do not know what you are talking about. I've just been plodding along meeting challenges with answers, giving scenario for scenario, accounting for Evo notions with better Flood notions etc. I don't see a fairness issue here.
I just read through the above. And read through it again. And I don't think you actually said anything.
As for what happens when a large blaock static shellfish - like an oyster bed - is killed by being deeply buried in sediment, the answer is that it stays there. And don't forget that the Flood model proposes even deeper burial than we would usually find !
Probably much sea life WAS buried in the sea. No reason to suppose it all was. Lots of tumult in that water. Lots of movement of Stuff from one place to another.
Wehn you go back to the rivers you simply assuem that the geological evidence must be absent.
I do? I thought I assumed there WAS evidence of rivers. I merely gave a Flood-view explanation of them.
Well even though neither of us know what the evidence actually says that isn't necessarily true. You can't assume that any evidence you personally do not know of does not exist.
I know that entire scenarios for entire "landscapes" for entire Geological Time Periods have been sketched out from the Evo point of view. There's one such detailed sketch online for the Grand Canyon area that is quite a study in interpretive creativity. I'll see if I can find it again. This guy has elaborate descriptions of terrain for the different "worlds" each of the strata supposedly represent. Rivers are part of these landscapes. I'm sure the guy is no nut, I'm sure he knows what the evidence is, though he doesn't at any point describe actual evidence, such as "channel that looks like a riverbed in such and such a layer, such and such wide, over such and such distance," he just spins out his scenario of a river in a certain kind of terrain as Evos are wont to do.
I figure he knows there's something there that looks sort of like a riverbed. That being the case I account for that same evidence in terms of the Flood, which I do think fits it much better than Old Earth terms. The Dinosaur Monument also says that these dinosaurs died by a river and were carried by that river. Unless they're all totally making things up, there is SOMETHING there that appears to be an old riverbed. It fits Flood ideas quite nicely really that dinosaurs would have been carried down a channel like that, especially since they tend to be buried all bunched up at the bottom.
And we see yet more diparagement without any supporting evidence at all. I'm not forgetting FACTS - I just don't agree that your assertiosn ARE facts just because you say so.
And whebn you DO produce a criticism it is one that attacks something that was not said. Nobody has said that dinosaurs WENT to die near the river. Only that some DID die near the river:
Well, animals do kind of know when they are about to die. That was my thought. Also some have a reputation for going away from the vicinity of the herd to die too. Elephants I think? But yes you are right, I interpolated that point although I don't think it important, nor was it THE factor I was disparaging. I think it equally unlikely that they simply
happened to die there in sufficient numbers to form the dinosaur pile-up at the bottom of the river over a few million years.
So you can't find anything wrong with the mainstream view
It's WAY less likely as an explanation of the actual evidence than the Flood explanation. That's what's wrong with it.
while your scenario goes against typical creationist views,
It true that I do a lot of my own imagining on these things as I'm thinking through the problem before me, but I don't think the ideas GO AGAINST creationist views. They seem to me to build on what I've read by creationists, and for all I know I got some of it from them. It's hard to know in a given case.
doesn't adequately explain the marine fossils (which according to you must have been dug up from the bottom of the Flood sediment somewhere else
What? I thought I said most were laid down while the Flood was standing on the earth, precipitated out in layers, tons of marine creatures that had died in the water -- because of the thick sediments that were stirred up from beneath and eroded down into the water. Marine fossils in a higher layer I suggested would have been carried onto land in subsequent tides. A perfectly reasonable possibility. "Dug up from the bottom of the Flood sediment?" Where did you get that?
- not that you have any evidence of that) and doesn't have any evidence that supports it over the view you want to reject.
Let us review the process of thought here. Neither does the Dinosaur Monument have any EVIDENCE that supports their fanciful scenario of dinosaur death by the river. The SAME evidence is the basis for both their scenario and mine.
Moose
™ Version 4.2
