The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

Hi again Calypsis,

quote:

---

First, both creationists and evolutionists agree that rapid burial provides the best conditions for the formation of fossils.

---

Not always. Have you heard of or seen pictures of the peat bog bodies of Europe? They were slowly mummified in the anoxic conditions deep in the water. This is also why you get fossils intersecting in several layers of varves, which creationists erroneously love to cite as evidence that varves don't show that the earth is old. You can look at this site for more info, which IMO would be a good idea since it was written with people like you in mind: Answers in Creation: Bringing the Bible and Science Together Without ConflictI also have a question for you. Where in the geologic column is the flood layer? Thanks.(added in edit) Many lakes in the Green River Formation contained varves. You've just posted photos of fossils from the Green River Formation. I can't tell which ones are in sedimentary rock containing varves but it's a distinct possibility -- remember, we're talking anoxic conditions preserving the fossils, and layers that are slowly and regularly deposited. So how do I know that the fossils are contemporary with each other, as you claim? Please can you start giving links to your sources.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Admin: I hope we can prevent this thread going the exact same way as the "Fossils Disprove Evolution" one. It's already headed in that direction: picture after picture repeating the same claim, while other posts are ignored. As each picture is refuted, we just get more of the same.Calypsis: Please take some time to address the questions put to you. You also need to show that these fossil beds are all the result of a global flood, instead of localised events. That means we should see jumbled fossils wherever we look in the geologic column, yes? Is that what we see everywhere, do you think?

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.

Let me get this right -- you are looking at animal footprints and ripple marks in rock, and claiming that they are evidence of a global flood? Can you explain how those marks were preserved in the mud during 40 days and 40 nights of rain followed by a flood that covered the tops of mountains??

Hi Slevesque,Same question to you as to Calypsis: Can you tell us where in the geologic column you think the flood layer is? Thanks.

Hi Slevesque,Your honest reply to my question is appreciated. I get the impression that you are quite young, and that English is not your first language? I admire you for coming here and taking us all on You seem like a very thoughtful and intelligent person.It might come as a surprise to you that there is no "current creationist model of the flood." Ask them to be specific about the flood layer and you get different answers and shifting goalposts, just like when you ask them what a "kind" is. I spoke to one creationist who had decided that it was sort of everywhere but you couldn't see it. This was after I gave him evidence of what the geology of a catastrophically flooded area looks like, and asked him where all the jumbles of fossils from the dyings animals were.Can you explain why fossils are sorted in the geologic record in a way convenient for evolution? Why we see trilobites near the bottom, dinosaurs further up, and humans near the top -- never mixed with each other, anywhere? This is not hydrological sorting. Curious, don't you think?If you look at a place like the Grand Canyon, you will have difficulty finding that flood layer because you get things like evidence of burrowing, coprolites, ripple marks and animal tracks in aeolian deposits, paleosols, and brachiopods fossilised in colonies with their stalks still attached to the ground or to other shells. I hesitate to go into any more detail though because the Grand Canyon is a topic in itself, whether we're talking about its geology or the fossils it contains.One final question: where did all the sediment go? Surely if we're looking for a flood layer, we would expect to see -- all around the world -- a thick layer of mud which contains fossils jumbled up, trilobites with dinosaurs and humans.It ain't there.

Plate tectonics is a subject for another thread.You don't get it do you? You deliberately ignore what I say, and misrepresent (to use a polite term) what you yourself said.From Message 42:

quote:

---

From appearances the tracks made me think of a big crowd of animals scurrying in every direction.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

You still need to explain how these things were preserved and lithified during the turbulence of the Biblical flood.As for all fossils being part of the flood layer, please explain why when we look at the fossil record, trilobites are always at the bottom, with dinosaurs above, and humans near the top. Same conversation I'm having with Slevesque. In fact, I would put the same questions to you that I put to him in Message 60.Please deal with the myriad questions already presented to you and stop posting more pictures. I think admin are going to have to step in because this is getting ridiculous. Again.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The so-called 'geologic column' exists almost nowhere on earth.

---

It does actually:
The Geologic Column and its Implications to the FloodScroll down and you will see a detailed analysis of the complete geologic column in North Dakota. At the bottom there is a list of 31 other basins in the world in which it is also complete.Why are some layers missing in other places? Erosion. There are entire mountain ranges that have been uplifted and weathered down to their cores in the earth's geological history. This is difficult for an ex-science teacher to grasp?I will await answers to my previous questions. Better not hold my breath or I'll asphyxiate.

quote:

---

One must think stereophonically, so-to-speak, about such things. The whole world was not destroyed on the first day of destruction. The timing of things is the key factor but almost impossible nail down with certainty. Perhaps hot rock/ash from early volcanic activity was cooled by changing weather conditions and there you have the lithification.

---

This doesn't make a lick of sense in the English language.
You're having a whale of a time here aren't you?

Cite your source for the trilobite fossil please.So I'm supposed to take your word for it that human footprints were found in cambrian rock? And your evidence for this is . . . ?The elevation makes no difference; we're looking at the dates of the rocks, the fossils they contain, and their relative positions.I'm falling right into this like a sucker aren't I? We need to make this guy stick to one topic or we're going to end up with a 400-post thread in a few hours that contains mostly pretty piccies and raving unsubstantiated creationist nonsense.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

I had been looking for places in the science forums where an interested non-expert like me could join in, having been banned for posting too many uncomfortable facts in another creationist forum. Calypsis' posts show so much astounding scientific ignorance that I found it easy to join in with refuting them. Like others here have done, I should have stopped early on when it became apparent that he has no interest in the facts, detailed posts are wasted on him, and maybe all he really wants to do here is stir us up and then go off and claim to his admiring creo friends that he won debates with us. I enjoyed the space I had to add a bit of my own knowledge but it came at the price of chasing after rapidly-shifting topics and feeling like I'd been made to look silly. The next such thread needs to be more focused, I agree, but I also think that until (if ever, which I think is unlikely) Calypsis changes his attitude, it's better not to give him a platform for proselytising. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.