the ultimate question

here it is: the question that everyone wants to know-how did the great flood form the fossil strata so perfectlyand just for kickswhy does the fossil exclude all modern animals.

someone please give me answer- ps- if the earth is 6000 years old, gove me proof that the continents didn't split.

"here it is: the question that everyone wants to know-
how did the great flood form the fossil strata so perfectly"
--Please emphesize on the your meaning of the perfection of strata formation."why does the fossil exclude all modern animals."
--Speciation, I am quite sure you are well aware of this concept."someone please give me answer- ps- if the earth is 6000 years old, gove me proof that the continents didn't split."
--The continents did split.------------------

ok TC
gove me evidenc to suggest that the continents split in the past 6000 years. don't tell me it's possible- gove me evidencesecondly, why is the strata primitive on the bottom, advanced on the top? no answer yet.and what is speciation? i'm on google right now so i can respond

Thanks's funny QS, becasue I actually ask the reverse: how could such neat parralel stacking that traverses sub-continental regions with so few unconformities have been generated gradually? This is especially difficult to understand for land animal/plant fossil bearing beds where one would expect a lot of erosion if it was a series of floods (not to mention how large the areas are).Instead creationists understand that the vast beds that characterise the geological column were formed rapidly by hydrodynamic sorting. I presume you know that rapid layering has been proven (Mt St Helens, in the lab, polystrate fossils etc)?I ask you instead. Why would gradual layering in vast beds form a 'red' layer over thousands of square miles and then suddenly 100 feet of white chalk? Hydrodynamic sorting on an incredible scale is a far better explanation than gradualism.------------------
You are go for TLI

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Thanks's funny QS, becasue I actually ask the reverse: how could such neat parralel stacking that traverses sub-continental regions with so few unconformities have been generated gradually? This is especially difficult to understand for land animal/plant fossil bearing beds where one would expect a lot of erosion if it was a series of floods (not to mention how large the areas are).

​

Instead creationists understand that the vast beds that characterise the geological column were formed rapidly by hydrodynamic sorting. I presume you know that rapid layering has been proven (Mt St Helens, in the lab, polystrate fossils etc)?

​

I ask you instead. Why would gradual layering in vast beds form a 'red' layer over thousands of square miles and then suddenly 100 feet of white chalk? Hydrodynamic sorting on an incredible scale is a far better explanation than gradualism.

---

Hydrodynamic sorting does NOT explain the fossil sequence in
the geologic column at all.If all creatures co-existed at the time of the flood, why are
creatures of similar size and mass evident in different layers of
the geologic column ? And consistently too.Oh and take a look at::Polstrate fossils::
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/polystrate_trees.html
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/lompoc.html
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/mortensonresp2.htm
"‘Polystrate Fossils. Unless one holds an extreme dead slow depositing Uniformitarianism, which neither Lyell nor Darwin nor
anyone else ever held, then local catastrophic deposition is no problem. These polystrate fossils — usually trees— are found passing
through a few strata especially at Yellowstone or in the Coal Measures. They only cut across beds of very similar age i.e. successive
beds of sandstone Rapid catastrophic deposition of some strata was known long before Lyell wrote in 1830. Perhaps the most
dishonest argument on polystrate fossils is the cartoon on p85 of Paul Ackerman’s It’s a young world after all with a fossil tree
passing through Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary i.e. 100 my of rock. I am afraid I find that kind of deliberate misrepresentation
offensive and unbecoming of a Christian. It is important to follow the Ninth Commandment as well as the Fourth! (If I did find a
polystrate fossil like that I would be convinced of YEC and offer my services to AIG.)"And this is interesting too (although quite a trawl and not ALL
on the current topic):
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/evolution.htmlMt St, Helens related ::
http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/1995/102695/barren2.html
http://www.doesgodexist.org/MarApr01/AVisitToMtStHelens.html

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 05-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Hydrodynamic sorting on an incredible scale ...

---

Nicely put, TB. It is incredible - which is why rationalist geologists afford it no credibility.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Instead creationists understand that the vast beds that characterise the geological column were formed rapidly by hydrodynamic sorting. I presume you know that rapid layering has been proven (Mt St Helens, in the lab, polystrate fossils etc)?

​

---

I purely hydrodynamic sorting were responsible for the geologic column & the fossil record we would get;From top to bottom.Glacial
Fluviatile
Dunes & Loess.Post flood
Beach
DeltaicContinental shelf deposits.Late flood.Laterally transported, mixed, terrestrial plant & animal fragmentsTurbidites, contourites.Largely unfossiliferousFlocculated clays, cherts, limestones..Tree trunks & stumps, planktonic unicellular monista, protista, graptolites.Noncolloidal claysPlant seeds & sporesSilts.....Larger insectsFine sandstone...Small marine invertebratesMedium/coarse sandstoneLarge birdsConglomerates....Small vertebratesBasal breccia...Medium/large vertebratesBasal chaos....Reef & stromatolites fragments(Science & Earth History 1999, Arthur N Strahler, p373)Do we see this kind of hydrodynamic sorting? No, not at all.Your hydrodynamic sorting doesn't explain away multiple beds of shale,sandstone,shale,sandstone, for example. According to hydrodynamic sorting the largest & densest should be at the bottom, not the bottom, then a layer half way up, then a layer at the top.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-15-2002]

and don't forget those wacky paleosols! http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htmCheersJoe meert

"Hydrodynamic sorting does NOT explain the fossil sequence in
the geologic column at all."
--Thats right, it doesn't! He did not address fossil succession, but the source of a clean layering of strata. You all waisted quite a bit of breath there! ------------------

Yes I'm afraid you all (apart from TC) have certainly spouted an awful lot of rhetoric with little consideration for the point I was trying to make. I was interested in a scientific assesment of the issue I brought up, not your standard dogma on related but different issues! So I'll take that as a, yes, we can't explain such abrupt transitions between vast 100 foot thick layers by mainstream explanations. Maybe I'll go back to the other sites where the evolutionsists at least read what I wrote. ------------------
You are go for TLI

Mark gave you a detailed reply on your point about hydrodynamic sorting. If you feel it was in some way deficient it's only necessary to point out how.The thickness of a geologic layer is a function of many things, including the rate of deposition and the length of time that conditions remain the same. Limestone layers (chalk) are usually deposited in quiet, shallow seas from a persistent "rain" of organic matter. The Earth's Dynamic Systems by W. Kenneth Hamblin says:

Many plants and invertebrate animals extract calcium carbonate from water in their life process and use it to construct their shells and hard parts. When these organisms die, their shells accumulate on the sea floor. Over a long period of time, the shells build upa deposit of limestone with a texture consisting of shells and shell fragments. This type of limestone, composed mostly of skeletal debris, can be several hundred meters thick and extend over thousands of square kilometers.

Available evidence presents a number of extremely serious problems for the flood viewpoint. Floods do not lay down sorted layers. Floods do not lay down fine sediment. A single flood does not lay down multiple layers. A flood would not sort organisms by degree of difference from modern forms. A flood would not sort material into layers by radiometric age. A flood would not lay down oppositely magnetized adjacent stripes on sea floors.--Percy

^ Percy, I hope you saw from my smiley that I was mainly trying to be funny. But I still don't think anyone addressed the issue of why for 'thousands/millions of years' there would be red sandstone and then suddenly chalk for 'thousands/millions of years'. I really think this has to be hydrodynamic sorting although I don't deny the oranismal origin of chalk. Let's not sidetrack onto the bigger picture of the fact that you don't think the flood could generate much of the geological column. Let's look at this one issue for a minute.The only sensible creaitonist explanation of the magnetic stripes is that of Snelling/Austin et al that propose a rapid version of continental drift and sea floor spreading. I personally suspect they are correct about this and that it is the accerlated radioisopotic decay (caused by whatever means) that both (i) caused the flood/continental drift via radiogeneic heating and (ii) left radiodecay proportions that correlate with the stripes.I am the first to acknowledge that this is 'after the horse has bolted' reasoning but science sometimes works that way. Sometimes we predict things and sometimes we explain the data after we have it. I presume you are aware of the recently demonstated vast excess of radiogenic helium in granites and corresoponding shortfall of atmospheric helium that supports the accelrated decay scenario?------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-15-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ Percy, I hope you saw from my smiley that I was mainly trying to be funny. But I still don't think anyone addressed the issue of why for 'thousands/millions of years' there would be red sandstone and then suddenly chalk for 'thousands/millions of years'. I really think this has to be hydrodynamic sorting although I don't deny the oranismal origin of chalk. Let's not sidetrack onto the bigger picture of the fact that you don't think the flood could generate much of the geological column. Let's look at this one issue for a minute.[/QUOTE]JM: Are you positive there is no evidence for a sedimentary break between these units? In fact, there are some sharp transitions between sedimentary facies, but more often than not, we see erosional evidence between beds or other information indicating that the transition took some time. However, let's use the 'hydrodynamic sorting of sediments' argument. Why would we find a redbed underlying a limestone which is in turn overlain by a conglomerate?

quote:

---

The only sensible creaitonist explanation of the magnetic stripes is that of Snelling/Austin et al that propose a rapid version of continental drift and sea floor spreading.

---

JM: The problem with that is that there is no evidence for rapid reversals in the geologic record. It does not fit the land-ocean magnetic reversal pattern. You also end up with very shallow oceans ( http://gondwanaresearch.com/oceans.htm ).

quote:

---

I personally suspect they are correct about this and that it is the accerlated radioisopotic decay (caused by whatever means) that both (i) caused the flood/continental drift via radiogeneic heating and (ii) left radiodecay proportions that correlate with the stripes.

---

JM: The problem with rapid decay is shown http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm

quote:

---

I am the first to acknowledge that this is 'after the horse has bolted' reasoning but science sometimes works that way. Sometimes we predict things and sometimes we explain the data after we have it. I presume you are aware of the recently demonstated vast excess of radiogenic helium in granites and corresoponding shortfall of atmospheric helium that supports the accelrated decay scenario?

---

JM: I am familiar with the claims of creationists that these are problems, but I am also familiar with the fact that this is an 'invention' by misinterpretation!CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]

Tranquility Base writes:

---

But I still don't think anyone addressed the issue of why for 'thousands/millions of years' there would be red sandstone and then suddenly chalk for 'thousands/millions of years'. I really think this has to be hydrodynamic sorting although I don't deny the oranismal origin of chalk. Let's not sidetrack onto the bigger picture of the fact that you don't think the flood could generate much of the geological column. Let's look at this one issue for a minute.

---

The sandstone would be laid down by shallow, turbulent coastal waters. Depth would depend on length of time the region was coastal. Limestone is laid down as already described. Transition from depositing sandstone to depositing limestone would occur through uplift or subsidence, uplift if the sandstone's on top, subsidence if the limestone's on top.This diagram from An Introduction to Grand Canyon Geology by Michael Collier makes clear just one of the many difficulties of the flood view. Mix sand and powdered limestone in water, stir, let them subside. You'll have sand on the bottom, limestone on top. You'll never get sand, then limestone, then sand, then limestone. Yet that's just what you get at the Grand Canyon: Compounding the problems for the flood view are the slanted layers at the bottom. They were originally deposited horizontally, then tilted as part of a mountain building process, then eroded flat before the more recent Grand Canyon layers were deposited on top. Try doing that with a flood.--Percy