The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

I've not participated for two reasons: 1) I'm recovering from major medical conditions, and 2) I had earlier spent a few years of my life trying to carry on a discussion with a local creationist who was a pathological liar and used the exact same methods as Calypsis4 has repeatedly and consistently used. How could any reasonable person even think they could carry on any kind of meaningful discussion with such an individual?I would have jumped in at one point, but LindaLou beat me to it. When Calpysis4 (BTW, look up that word; rather an interesting insight to this individual and his probably character and motivation) regurgitated the standard creationist spasm about the geological column, LindaLou pointed him directly to Glenn R. Morton's page about the existence of the complete geological column (as per published creationist standards) both in North Dakota (been there, having for five years served 200 miles from the "middle of nowhere", AKA Rugby, ND) and in about 31 other locations in the world. Not only that, but that complete geological column contains several widely separated layers of shale, which requires extended periods of tranquil water and so could not have possibly formed within a mere fraction of a single year of highly turbulent flooding. Plus, many layers contain burrows made by organisms of that time, such that those burrows could not have possibly been dug within such fractions of a single year of highly turbulent flooding. Plus, crinoid beds that contain so many crinoids that they wouldn't have left any room on the entire earth for any other organisms, let alone all of themselves.But the real killer evidence to be presented by Glenn R. Morton is his own story. He used to be a young-earth creationist. All he knew about geology he had learned from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). He even wrote several articles for the Creation Science Research Quarterly (part of the creationist organization that preceded the ICR). When he graduated with a BS Physics at a time when that degree didn't mean much (some time in the 1980's), he went to work as a field geologist for an oil company.A moment here, please, to get some perspective. When he presented his findings at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism (ICC), the crowd from the ICR immediately challenged him. In particular, John Morris, who identified himself as a "petroleum geologist". Morton chopped Morris off at the ankles with two questions:
1. "What petroleum company did you work for?"
"Well, uh, I taught one semester on the subject at the University of Oklahoma." (ie, no actual field experience, which Morton did indeed have).
2. "How old is the earth?"
"If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning."That is the mind-set that Morton had been taught when he went to work in the field. At that 1986 ICC, Morton reported that he had hired several geology graduates of Christian Heritage College [which formerly housed the ICR and hence they had all been similarly trained in ICR flood geology], and that all of them suffered severe crises of faith. They were utterly unprepared to face the geological facts every petroleum geologist deals with on a daily basis.What was not reported at that time, but was later reported by Morton himself, "creation science" drove Morton to "the verge of atheism". It wasn't evolution, nor was it geology, but rather creation science that drove him to the verge of atheism, because it was not evolution nor geology, but rather creation science that insisted that if the world is older than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning. Glenn tells his own story at No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm and at No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm, plus he provides others' personal stories at No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/person.htm -- I would personally recommend Steve Smith's story at No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ssmith.htm.I would recommend that Calypsis follow those links and learn the truth, but I know that he never will. Morton's site contains many pages providing extensive problems that the rock-hard geological facts refute creationist "flood geology". Calypsis needs to learn the truth for somebody who has actual hands-on experience. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot: Calypsis is incapable of learning the truth. One of the occupational hazards of being a creationist.OBTW, I found Calypsis4's mention of the Green River Shale to have been hilarious! Morton presented that evidence at the 1986 ICC as being extremely serious problems for "flood geology". That formation required several thousands of years of annual deposits in tranquil water and could not have possibly formed during a single year of turbulent flooding.I'm sorry that I cannot provide a link to this other piece of evidence, but Morton seems to be reorganizing his site at this time. He presented a coprolite, a fossilized turtle turd. A fossilized dessicated (means "dried up") turtle turd. What are the chances of a turd in a turbulent flood? What are the chances of a turd getting dried up in a flood?

Archetypically, you resort to sarcasm. Did you not read the origin of my screenname? You were provided the link! Yet you persist in speaking from abject ignorance!Read it this time. Here again is the link, this time to the specific page -- EvC Forum: Friday Fun! - Where did you get your Alias? -- it's Message #93. Oh, it's not so much what you would be attempting to hide from us, but rather what you persist in hiding from yourself. Like, the truth. But that is how creationists must act, since they are taught that if the world really is as it is, then there is no God. And since the world really is as it is, creationists must then deceive themselves into believing that it is not. Which is why you feel you must do everything you can to avoid and to wish away the evidence. And, I believe, it is why creationists hate nothing more than for someone to want to actually discuss their claims with them -- immensely more so if that someone also wants to include examination of the evidence. Apparently, the creationist fears examining his own claims too closely, lest he discover for himself how false and even ridiculous they are. Your opponents are so used to examining their own claims and thinking them through and looking for errors that need correcting, that it is very foreign for us to realize how loath creationists are to do the same with their own claims. I would prefer to, though for far different reasons that you think. I've been dealing with creationists for 26 years -- after having started studying it 3 years prior -- , trying to discuss their claims with them. An endeavor made most disagreeable by persistent creationist tactics and strategies of making assertions without any evidence or with distorted or fabricated evidence, refusal to provide evidence or references to their "evidence", refusal to clarify any of their claims, refusal to discuss any of it. And their willingness to any kind of offensive conduct in their attempts to avoid and discourage discussion of their claims.So far, Calypsis, you appear to be the archetypical creationist. So perfectly archetypical that if an "evolutionist" were to create a sham creationist persona to go out and thoroughly discredit creationism (ignoring the moment that creationism is self-discrediting) and Christianity, he would have created you.So, the reason why I would not want to join in, is because I'm no longer masochistic enough. It's useless trying to reason with a creationist or to try to discuss anything with him. At best, we can show the lurkers that the creationist's claims are crap and why they're crap. But to the creationist, the evidence and the actual science and truth are just pearls cast before swine. You did read that article, didn't you? Duh! What was I thinking? of course you didn't read it! You're the archetypical creationist! The moment you catch a whiff of actual evidence you go the other way! Here's that link again, for the sake of the others reading this, at least, since you'll only run away from it yet again: No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htmFirst Morton starts out by stating that he will use a creationist definition of the geological column (by Morris and Parker), making sure to point out that it's not the definition that a geologist would use (but then what else is new?). The creationist requirement was that all twelve major systems had be be present. Further definition is provided by none other than Woodmorappe (link provided on Morton's page):

quote:

---

Creationists do not say that every single day’s deposits must be preserved! The fact is that Morris and Parker are not talking about a little of the daily sediment being missing. If we read the Morris and Parker quote again, we can see that the 100- or 200-mile column is not the presumed product of daily sedimentation. Rather, the 100- to 200-mile column represents the sum of the thickest sections from the field of each of the ten Phanerozoic systems and/or their major components.

---

So missing sections of a system is not a problem; it's just that all major systems need to be present. OBTW, notice that Morris and Parker talk about twelve major systems while your "expert" Woodmorappe talks about only 10. Gee, why can't those creationists get their stories straight?Morton states:

quote:

---

Today, Woodmorappe claims that the real issue with regard to the geologic column is the small percentage of the maximum sedimentation that exists. If Woodmorappe really felt that the existence of the 10 periods was of no importance, if Woodmorappe really thought that the small percentage of the 200 miles was the real issue, why did he spend his entire 1981 article talking about where the 10 periods existed? One would think he would spend the most time on the most important issue. He spent the most space discussing the 10 periods and I can't find a single paragraph on what he now says is important. Woodmorappe's entire article belies his current claim.

---

So if you're trying to claim that all those 10 periods don't actualy exist anywhere on earth, then Woodmorappe directly contradicts you. So on one hand you praise Woodmorappe as some kind of idol and on the other you denounce him as some kind of an idiot. How shallow and gullible you truly are (ie, please stop projecting your own shortcomings on others). First, you need to learn some geology. And for each supposed "anomaly", you need to research what geologists have to say about it. Do not rely solely on creationist sources as you have been doing, because they are guaranteed to lie about those formation.Second, what's the source of that photo? Where's the link? Or reference? Why didn't you provide it?You have berated members of this forum for "unprofessional conduct", yet here you yourself persist in engaging in outrageously unprofessional conduct despite repeated protests raised by both members and by moderators. One of the most fundamental requirements of such discussions as we are trying to engage in (and that you are trying to sabotage) is scholarship. And one of the most basic tenents of scholarship is to provide references.You demand professional conduct of others and yet you abjectly refuse to engage in the most basic professional conduct yourself? There's a word for that: hypocrisy. Do you have any idea what Jesus thought of hypocrites? According to the Gospels, there wasn't much else he hated more than he hated hypocrites.You want to see professional conduct? Well then you'd better start displaying some professional conduct yourself, mister! Start by providing references to the sources of what you post here!

I've always had problems with the polystrate fossil claims. Severe problems that I have never been able to resolve.The problem is that creationists just never ever give any usable sources for their claims! They'll give one for the photo from National Geographic (indeed! Even Caplysis very uncharacteristically tells us that that photo is from National Geographic!), but not for anything else. Where are the articles by geologists about those sites? There was a 19th century book with polystrate illustrations, but that's all we ever hear. Give us some sources, already!Now, many years ago on CompuServe (were you ever there, Calypsis?), one creationist did quote from Steve Austin's ICR monograph, Catastrophes in Earth History, and told me that Austin quoted F. M. Broadhurst's article, Some aspects of the paleoecology of non-marine faunas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal measures (American Journal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869, 1964) which showed trees and their root systems extending through coal seams. In reality, when I actually read Broadhurst's article, none of those trees extended through any coal seams, nor did any of their root systems extend into the coal seams.But even more telling was what that article said about rates of depositation. While Steve Austin was being paid by the ICR to get a post-graduate degree in geology (so that they could finally claim to have a degreed geologist on staff) he would write creationist articles for them using a pseudonym, "Stuart Nevins". As Stuart Nevins, he wrote an article in which he claimed that geologists believed that strata formed at a completely gradual and constant rate, even though even undergraduate geology students know full well that that is a complete and utter lie -- and Austin was writing that while he was a graduate student. He had to know better and yet he still repeated that lie!Well, had Austin actually read that article (I learned to not make such an assumption about creationists with the ICR's NASA document moon-dust debacle), he would have learned what he should have learned years ago in his undergraduate classes: geologists can distinguish between layers formed by rapid depositation and layers formed by slow depositation. It's described in Broadhurst's article. Those "polystrate" tree stumps were buried in layers formed by rapid depositation.Creationists: if you want to make a polystrate claim, then provide proper references!Are trees supposed to be the only ones? No whales standing on their tail (or head) through multiple layers?

Oh, I've been to a great many creationist sites over the years. When I research particular creationist claims, I find it essential to read what the creationists themselves say in making that claim as well as to learn what sources they cite. It's very important to read what creationists' own sources actually said; many times, half the disproof of the creationist claim has been in how they had lied about their source. I have also been to the ICR site many times to research their Impact articles. I even subscribed to their Acts & Facts for years, until Gish suddenly and summarily cancelled my subscription because I had caught him in a lie about moon dust.Citing one's sources and providing references to them is one of the most basic principles of scholarship and it is a very important one, which is what makes your own persistent and willful unprofessional conduct so egregious. National Geographic has 110 years of magazine content. Converting that to web content would be a monumental task. Do you have any idea when that photo was published? I seem to remember having seen it reproduced in creationist works nearly two decades ago, simply noted as being a National Geographic photo. How far back does the National Geographic's content archive go? Two decades?In comparison, Answers in Genesis maintains an on-line archive of their articles, but those seem to only go back six years. Sadly, when I went back to retrieve a November 2002 article from their site, their archive no longer went that far back; they were actually removing their older content.Makes me wonder. Thank you for that link. And it just proves what I said. It says that the photo is from National Geographic and throws their claims out there again and no references to their sources! And that's what I've found over and over again in creationist books, on their sites, and in their forum posts. Pictures and bare assertions and zero source references.If there's ever going to be any serious investigation into this claim, we will need some sources. Which is undoubtedly why creationists avoid citing any.Though a leitmotif that I keep seeing is "rapid depositation" and then they make a ridiculous leap to "global flood". It appears that they think that evidence of rapid sediment depositation is supposed to create some kind of problems for geology. Of course it presents to problem for geologists. In the present, we frequently see evidence of rapid depositation by local flooding, so what's up with creationists claiming that evidence of local flooding is proof of a global flood?

The geological column is a reconstruction that seeks to place all strata within their historical context. The actual geology of any given location tends to be unique, but characteristic and identifiable layers are there.A question that's been bugging me, though. We find the strata of the geological column in continental masses, with ocean floors being more recent. And we find a complicated history in which those continental masses have been submerged at times and exposed as dry land at other times, such that we do not find depositation taking place all the time.But in the Flood Geology Model, all strata are created by the Flood. In that case, we should be able to find the entire geological column physically present in its entirety in many places. Why don't we see that?

Uh, excuse me, but why not? In a long geologically complex history, we shouldn't expect to see the entire column. But in a single one-year-long world-wide flood that created all geological formations, we should expect to see the entire column with every single layer right in place in several places around the world. So why don't we?In coherent English, please. Instead of your usual incoherent blathering.Edited by dwise1, : request for coherent English