The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

Why, this is very true.For example, consider the photograph you yourself just posted. [thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/0004.jpg[/thumb=300]See the one in the top right?Now, either Noah made use of color photography, or what we are looking at there is the result of a real process and not a magic flood.I have seen no evidence that Noah owned a camera, and also I have the feeling that floods, even magic ones, usually involve more water.<!--AB--><span class="szs f-link"><i>Edited by Dr Adequate, <script>if (getCookie('UseUserTimeZone')) {printDateTime(1255337760000, 'US', '-', 4, 'AMPM');} else {document.write('10/12/09 4:56 AM');}</script>: No reason given.</i></span><!--AE-->

Maintain away. I for my part maintain that the sediment was transported by real processes. Unlike you, I shall offer an argument, which is that observation teaches us non-magical processes that actually happen are commoner than magical processes that don't.

The majority of biblical scholars place the flood at about 4,350 years ago.At that age you are dealing with sediments (dirt), not rocks.Why do creationist continue to come up with geological nonsense (such as the Cambrian, which is over 500 million years old), when they should be looking in sediments for the remains of the flood?One of the first things I learned in archaeology: if you want to find a 10,000 year old site, look in 10,000 year old dirt!Applying that to the flood question, when we look in dirt about 4,350 years old what do we find? No flood!But I guess when you deal with belief instead of evidence none of this matters, eh?

---

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

You act like you've never read a creationist website in your life. Good grief. I find them easy enough by simply going to any of a number of places: answersingenesis.com, ICR, CreationMinistries, etc. and just do a search for 'polystrate fossils'. How hard is that?The photograph of the National Geographic pictures of the polystrate fossils had to be purchased by creationists privately for a rather hefty sum. There is no reference to it from National Geographic that I know of. I've tried. If one goes to either their main website or magazine website one can't even get the subject of 'polystrate fossils' to come up.Makes me wonder why.But you can see it here:http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/af/af0910.pdfWhen you find it then scroll down to about page 15.

Isn't that a brilliant observation? A wonder to behold.What the 'brilliant one' doesn't understand is that the fish in the upper right corner picture are 'living' fish...as per 'living fossils' that was made for the readers to make comparisons between the living and the dead...a frequent theme on this thread.But this is the intellectual level I am dealing with pretty consistently on this website.Speaking of 'magic'; the only magic involved in this discussion is in the belief that nature made all things by itself and the world we live in is purely accidental (or perhaps I should say, 'incidental').

Yes. 'Not complete'??? I smile at that one.Now let me show you the real facts in the matter:Read carefully:
Geologists sometimes claim to have found the entire geological column at certain sites, but what they really mean is that they have found layers that they can assign to all ten geologic ages. The following list is as found at 'The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota':The Ghadames Basin in Libya.
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morocco.
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia.
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman.
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt.
The Adana Basin in Turkey.
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey.
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria.
The Carpathian Basin in Poland.
The Baltic Basin near the territories of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in Russia.
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan.
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan.
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran.
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China.
The Qingxi Basin in China.
The Tung t'in-Yuan Shui Basin in China.
The Tarim Basin in China.
The Szechwan Basin in China.
The Yukon-Porcupine Province in Alaska.
The Williston Basin in North Dakota.
The Tampico Embayment in Mexico.
The Bogata Basin in Colombia.
The Bonaparte Basin in Australia.
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta
Of the 25 claimed locations, stratigraphic information was available on only six of them. There is little if any mention of fossils other than micro fossils such as pollen. Often the rocks seem to have been assigned their geologic age by comparing them with rocks from other locations. Most of these are hundreds of miles away and there is no direct observation of a physical connection. In some cases the "ages" are assigned to a rock layer based on the strata above or below it. These six do provide some interesting information, however.The Ghadames Basin in Libya
In this case, the only reference to fossils was a general reference to micro fossils. So this site seems to have little or no bearing on fossil order.Contrary to the claim that this site represents the entire geological column, the Permian period is missing. How can one claim the entire geological column is present when it is missing an entire period? The geological column labels seem to have been assigned based on the correlation with rocks from all across Libya. This means that there was sufficient room for subjective analyses, and that the labeling process assumed the geological column and thus cannot be used as evidence for its validity.The cross-section of the Ghadames Basin hints that coincidence rather than long ages brought these layers together as they are. The cross-section shows some 25 fracture lines and the pattern suggests that rather than being fault lines they are the result of compression stress. The Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic seem to have been forced over the others. This seems to have occurred after they and the rock beneath them had buckled down and before both had hardened completely. Such an event could have occurred during the Flood while the layers were not yet completely solidified.The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
While this area is rich in fossils, other than Pre-Cambrian, only Late Permian through Late Cretaceous seem to be represented and so it does not really contain the entire geological column. At least five of the formations in the area "generally lack biostratigraphically useful fossils"[4] and were at least to some degree assigned ages based on indirect means such as the "age" assigned the strata above or below it. Thus any claim that this site is evidence for the geological column in place and in order is an example of circular reasoning.[4]The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The only geologic "ages" that seem to be represented here are Jurassic and Cretaceous. Pre-Cambrian can be included since the basement rock is automatically labeled as such. The description seems to suggest that this is all that is actually found at this location. So only two out of ten geologic periods seem to be represented.[5]The Qingxi Basin in China
Only the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras seem to be present with no sign of the Paleozoic except for the Pre-Cambrian era (the generic label for the basement rock). In fact it seems to include only the Tertiary and Cretaceous periods, the Tertiary being Cenozoic and the Cretaceous being Mesozoic. So only two of ten geologic periods seem to be represented here. Furthermore, the nearby Qilian Shan (mountain range) Ordovician strata can be found over Pleistocene strata (part of the Tertiary). So contrary to being an intact geological column there is a place were "older" rock is found on top of "younger" rock and thus in the wrong order.[6]The Bonaparte Basin in Australia
This one is fairly complete in that all "geologic periods" are present but it in no way qualifies as a complete column, since there are numerous gaps when the strata are spread out on the geologic column chart.There seems to be cases of interbedding that go between periods. They are at Devonian / Carboniferous and Triassic / Jurassic boundaries. There may be others as well. There are also cases of interbedding spanning large portions of periods that should still be separated by tens of millions of years. They occur in the Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary.This means that the evidence suggests that this column formed a lot more rapidly than the geologic column suggests. There seems to be no reference to how any of the rock layers were assigned their respective ages but at the same time there seems to be no reference to fossils, so it is doubtful that they were used. This means that this site shows nothing about fossil order.[7][8]The Williston Basin in North Dakota
Also known as the North Dakota Column, this is claimed to contain the entire geologic column. As stated earlier, the total theoretical column depth is 100 miles, but the depth of the Williston Basin is only 3.4 miles. This means that much of the column is missing. Such large amounts of sedimentation are possible during a year-long global Flood, because it was laid down sideways making it quite possible to lay down such large amounts of sediment very quickly, the main factors being available sediment and the rate of current flow.[9]It does have rocks labeled as coming from all ten ages, but some interesting data can be found in The Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.. The Williston Basin is part of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.The details of the labeling of these strata are as follows:Hay River Embayment (van Hees, 1964) - a depositional area northwest of the Peace-Athabasca Arch, developed on the Interior Platform, containing remnants of rocks that have been interpreted as being equivalent to Lower and Middle Cambrian units of central Alberta. The rocks have not been dated, and some of the strata may be younger than here interpreted. The embayment extends westward into the mountains of northeastern British Columbia. This indicates that when lacking fossils, geologists find rocks that they can interpret as equivalent to the rocks they are dating, in order to set a geologic age. The US Geological survey, reporting on the Williston Basin, says, "biostratigraphy based on pollen and spores has been used to determine the age of the coal beds."[10] Other fossils include shells and fish but many layers have few if any fossils. In general these layers have not been dated by fossils. Furthermore, there is little reference to radiometric dates beyond the pre-Cambrian. The one set that is mentioned produced inconsistent results.
Local lithostratigraphy and sedimentology are generally well known. However, the paucity of reliable radiometric dates and the absence of biostratigraphic control has hindered correlation within and between the assemblages and precluded accurate dating of each assemblage.
There are several other cases where poor or no biostratigraphic data is mentioned, as well as no reference to radiometric dates. As a result it seems that many of these strata were assigned geologic ages based on comparing rocks. Then the comparisons were interpreted based on the geological column. The authorities seem to be assuming that because of the geologic column, the gaps must contain ages for which they have no fossils.The conclusion that they have a complete geologic column in this area is based on the assumption of the existence of the geologic column. This is circular reasoning.If that is not enough there is a place where a rock layer labeled Devonian can be found between rock layers labeled Carboniferous. Devonian is alleged to be older than Carboniferous, but this would suggest that they are really the same age.Curiously while the theoretical column thickness is 100 miles, the maximum thickness of sediment found any place is only 16 miles. That means that at any given location at least 84% of the geologic column is missing.Out of place layers
It is known that the layers of the geologic column are sometimes found out of place, that is older layers on top of younger ones. They are referred to as overthrusts. An overthrust would be one layer of rock being pushed over another." Creation/Wiki.Are you starting to get the idea? You've been lied to about the 'geologic column'. It is found complete almost nowhere in the world. Edited by Calypsis4, : reference

How can anyone think that this: was deposited in a flood rather than gradually over a long period of time?Es imposible!

Hi Calypsis, Please do expand upon this.What species are the living fish?What species are the fossil fish?I have to say, they don't look very much alike to me and I've kept fish most of my life. The living fish appear to be much slimmer in build than the fossils, although frankly, it is impossible to make any meaningful judgement from such a poor photograph.What makes you so sure that this is a living fossil? I would be rather more cautious about defining it as such myself, especially when the picture comes from a convicted criminal, holocaust denier and Islamic fundamentalist, as your picture does.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

If that was your point, it would have been wiser of you to have made it.You do not, of course, explain in what sense they are "living fossils". Can you tell us what species they are?My point remains: this is a mass death caused by a real event of the sort that actually happens, not by the miraculous act of a bloodthirsty tribal god committing a petulant act of genocide. Please try to lie less often.No-one in this thread, has advanced the proposition that "the belief that nature made all things by itself and the world we live in is purely accidental". We have, on the other hand, been discussing a flood which is attributed to the miraculous intervention of a deity.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi Calypsis4,This is from the Forum Guidelines:

6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

Next time just do this: Thanks!--PercyEdited by Percy, : Link rendering is improved over a couple years ago, so rerender this post.

I was just getting that idea, yes. Though with creationists it's hard to tell whether it's deliberate dishonesty, massive ignorance, or just drooling, shambling stupidity.I don't know who wrote that article, but I'm willing to bet it wasn't a geologist.A few references to the scientific literature would have been nice.

While I'm at it I will take the time to dump another truckload of evidence against evolution. I thought they closed this thread but while it's still here then I will take advantage of the situation:'Most textbooks claim that when we observe many thin layers of sediment (called lamina), sometimes only millimeters thick, that it took a season, a year, or years to lay each of the layers down.
The picture on the right shows a canyon containing thousands of thin layers. If someone did not know when it was formed, the naturalistic interpretation might be that the canyon is thousands of years old.'
The Genesis Flood 'As far as the fossilized bones of large animals, such as the dinosaurs and large mammals, they are also generally oriented in the same direction for any given layer, and this is true the world over. Did these animals position themselves in the same direction as they died? This does not really sound too likely. Even the legs and tails of these animals are oriented in the same direction for a given sedimentary layer. How does this happen? If you think this is strange, consider also that huge masses of large bones are found matted together in places like Bighorn Wyoming. Did these animals choose to die in the same location and in the same general orientation?'http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/fossilrecord.html [thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/fossilgraveyar2.jpg[/thumb=200]'Another very startling finding that demonstrates the sudden/catastrophic burial of very large creatures is a 1971 finding in Southern Mongolia of a perfectly articulated Protoceratops and a Velociraptor frozen in a life and death struggle with each other. Obviously these two creatures were buried suddenly by a huge catastrophe of magnificent proportions. The dinosaurs didn’t even have time to fall over.' [thumb=400]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/VelociraptorvsProtoceratops.jpg[/thumb=400]More information can be found on this at : http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/05/17/fighting.dinos/
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/fightingdinos/video3.htmlThe standard evolutionist explanation for this phenomenon is unacceptable. Here is why:Quote:Explanation 1
A collapsing sand dune.3
Problem: Sand dunes do not contain the water needed to replace the minerals in bones for fossilization on such a large scale.
Remember, the many other specimens found in the Gobi Desert were also covered by sandy sediment. Were they all from sand dunes, too?
Besides, we haven’t seen any conclusive evidence that this is a viable explanation.Explanation 2
Buried by a freak sandstorm.1,2
Problem: A freak sandstorm would also lack the water to properly fossilize buried specimens.
Second, if a sandstorm came upon these dinosaurs, they would likely try to escape that new threat and not remain in place. The aggressor would probably yield and seek safety.Explanation 3
Sank in quicksand.6
Problem: Again, they would likely try to escape that new threat and not remain in place. The aggressor would yield and seek safety. We once again have the problem of many other specimens in the area also sinking in quicksand. From answersingenesis.Next: [thumb=400]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/wollemi_pine_fossil_usbg_wide.jpg[/thumb=400]The Wollemi Pine of Australia. Said by evolutionists to have been extinct. Notice however, that there is no evolutionary change between the fossil Wollemi and the living.

Hmm, he didn't say anything. He didn't document anything. He just offered an opinion...like almost always. But somehow he gets away with it.

Why? And if I did would it make one bit of difference to you?Along with most of your comrades in accidentalism you have made it abundantly clear that you don't care what I say or what I post. You will argue with me and with your usual put-downs, tell me how wrong I am.Bye.

Sir, are you an administrator?