Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)

Lordy me, you actually believe that's evidence for a young Earth? And that's your lead link? Nothing but long-debunked claims like moon recession, oil pressure, and sun shrinkage; interspersed with items that have no connection ot the age of the Earth like the San Andreas Fault, Naigara Falls, and minerals in the oceans? And the old population growth chestnut, fer Chrissake!I thought you were actually trying to practice science. Obviously I was wrong. You need to spend some time reading An Index to Creationist Claims and kent-hovind.com -.

I have noted that RandyB has sometimes strayed pretty far from the theme of this topic, which is "Joggins Polystrate Fossils". Members of the "old Earth" side may or may not have also contributed to this drift. Anyhow, anything not directly connected to polystrate fossils is off-topic.Also, both Bill Birkeland and RandyB have been supplying a glut of links. I would suggest that they both try to narrow such things down to the most pertinent ones.Bill also supplies a lot of off-line references. While I do think it is good for Bill to show that there indeed are considerable amounts of such references in existence, I do think that the reality is that no one (other than Bill) is ever going to actually go to a library and look at the referenced articles. Thus, they are mostly just causing message clutter.Bill has previously started the "Links and Information" topic New Polystrate Forests found in New Brunswick. I would suggest that Bill create some sort of more general "Polystrate Fossils" "Links and Information" topic, to compile his large collections of the such. RandyB and others could also post their contributions at that new topic.Lastly, I have previously noted that Bill has already collected at least 3 "Post of the Month" nominations for messages in this topic. I also noted that there seems to have been a considerable overlap in the content of these messages. While Bill does present a massive amount of information, I must now make the observation that (IMO) the writing style and message structure of Bill's messages leaves much to be desired. His messages (again IMO) tend to be tough to read (and I'm one who does have a (very rusty) geology degree).Comments on the content of this message are welcome. But please take them to the "General discussion of moderation procedures" topic, link below. Or perhaps a new Suggestions and Questions topic is called for.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: NOTE: Follow up discussion is located here.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-13-2005 08:06 PM

---

Sorry, Randy, but we have a pretty good idea, because it is going on today. To say that the side canyons were carved by receding flood waters is ridiculous in that they travel in so many directions including directions opposite to what one would expect. Basically, the canyons are formed by mass wasting from the walls and the material is then swept away by normal stream flows. Once again, sorry, but I don't see it. I see normal drainage patterns that can be found in any watershed. Obviously there are numerous side canyons that coalesce into rather extensive areas, but this does not appear to be any abnormal occurrence. I will pray tell you if you will pray tell me why the Missisippi River Valley is so wide. Was that formed by a flood also? Unfortunately, we do not see any evidence of the kind of flows that one would expect in such an area. And you have yet to explain why the CR meanders. You also need to explain how the rocks in the canyon lithified within such a short period from deposition to erosion.

That theme needs to find a better home.To all - Please see my message 107 also.Please make any responses to this (off-topic) message to the "General discussion of moderation procedures" topic, link below.AdminnemooseusThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-13-2005 14:37 AM

---

You know, Randy, this would be a good place to support your argument with a reference. Give us a reference in which a German, English, Canadian or American lawyer or geologist uses coal to convince the rest of the world that the earth is old. Again, Randy, this would be a good place to show us where an actual occurrence of rafted vegetation mats has been observed. It might also be a good time to explain how these mats survived not only erosion from the land of their origin, but then managed to survive a surging flood ('the big one' as you called it) and then be deposited, intact, on some distant shore. Randy, did you remember that you started this paragraph with a big 'IF'? Randy, please explain how the floating vegetation mats are so incompatible with evolution. Why could they not occur in concert with evolution? On this one, it would be good if you could cite some reference that actually supports this idea. The YEC literature you seem so familiar with can hardly be considered valid unless they can explain some of the problems with erosion, transport and deposition of standing trees and their soil. Randy, did you ever consider the possibility that some of the prior trees in the forest actually fell and became part of the coal? If you haven't I have a nice flattened tree trunk, completel coalified that you need to explain to me. So, when we think about it REALLLY HARD, we see that there is nothing in the 'peat bog' theory that says a tree had to live through the entire interval of the coal seam. Or it could be that you have started off with a predetermined conclusion. I am sorry but you do not have any references that I consider credible. By the way, I enjoyed the discussion about Dr. Nevins' work. The best part comes when you understand that Dr. Nevins does not really exist! You see, this is just another lie that has been foisted upon you. Nevins is actually Steve Austin. The same Steve Austin who tells you that the Mount St. Helens aftermath is what convinced him of a young earth. Of course you have to ignore the fact the Nevins was actually publishing YEC tracts before MSH. Try this link:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt1.html Yes, funny how most of the coal mining at the time was in Germany, England and the US. Above, you already noted that peat is compressed 20 times to make a bed of lignite. What do you suppose happens to tree trunks and roots buried in the peat during that time? Okay, I'll take your word for it.added by edit: Sorry about my prior OT post, Moose. I sometimes shoot before reading all of the unread posts.This message has been edited by edge, 03-13-2005 15:42 AM

John ? Said: "...You need to spend some time reading An Index to Creationist Claims and kent-hovind.com -.Randy: There goes your credibility John -- as I don't trust ANYTHING that comes from the Talkorigins web-site (and on several occasions) have had to "correct" Lies they were trying to pass off on the public as fact. I.E The picture of a Whale-with a leg growing out from it that they used to have a Link to, and the FALSE assertion that was made by Dr. Kent Simmons that was also (at one time) on their site about Millers Experiment. To their credit, however, they DID remove this -- AFTER I sent them an email version of this Page not found – Earth AgeIn fact it was also (indirectly) that site that caused me to first begin examining the (almost) baseless "claim" that the Joggins upright fossil trees were (or are) "in situ" -- and which I think is utterly FALSE. In that regard I am still hoping that someday Calder, or Gibling, or Gestaldo, or Ferguson, or MacRae will admit that (at least some) of the UPRIGHT trees in the Joggins and Sidney strata display NO SIGNS of ROOTS (or anything close to it) attached, and that there are throughout this strata broken and fragmented roots of stigmaria (very often missing their (once attached) rootlets -- something that Brown, and (a reluctant) Dawson, and Coffin, and Morris, and Juby have, themselves, have all done.Randy Berg

Edge ?: said: Sorry, Randy, but we have a pretty good idea, because it is going on today. To say that the side canyons were carved by receding flood waters is ridiculous in that they travel in so many directions including directions opposite to what one would expect. Basically, the canyons are formed by mass wasting from the walls and the material is then swept away by normal stream flows.Sorry Edge, but that just doesn't make any sense. They are simply TOO LARGE to have been carved out by such tiny trickles of water. In this regard so is the Main Canyon itself TOO LARGE to have been cut by such a tiny river as the Colorado -- even as the Toutle River DID NOT carve our the Large Canyon that it now occupies near Mt. Saint Helens. And in this regard we actually witnesses how this 17-mile long canyon was eroded in a single day.Here is some more on this:
"Three separate eruptions produced sedimentary-type layers hundreds of feet thick. One of these was a hurricane velocity deposit that produced thousands of thin laminations. This deposit is up to 25 feet thick 10,11,12. The third eruption was a lava flow, which turned into a hot mud-flow as it crossed the Toutle River. This hot mud flow not only diverted the river, but carved a 17 mile long series of canyons (up to 140 feet deep) in a matter of hours. They call it the "Little Grand Canyon" of the Toutle River." 10,11,12. The mass media and popular science publications have still not told the public what happened.1310. Ham, Ken, "I got excited at Mount St. Helens!," Creation Ex
Nihilo, Vol. 15, No, 3, June-Aug., 1993, pp. 14-19.
11. Austin, Steven A., "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe," 1994,
Institute for Creation Research, Santee CA, 92071, pp. 37-39, 94,
97-98.
12. Morris, John D., Ph.D. (geology), The Young Earth, 1994, Creation
Life Publishers, Inc., pp. 106-107.
13. Pendick, Daniel, "Return to Mount St. Helens," Earth, April 1995,
pp. 22-33. This article shows a picture of the canyon taken from
about a mile away. No mention is made of the finely layered
laminations in the 11-page article.With regard to the 600 feet of layered strata, the article says: "The very top layer contains the occasional falls of ash that
rained down 15 years ago." p. 33. The 17 mile long canyon that rerouted to Toutle River is referred to as "the 17-mile-long
landslide that filled the Toutle River Valley." p. 33. NOVA also did a special on Mt. St. Helens, "Return to Mt. St. Helens,"
however, their coverage was just as pitiful. Passing mentions are made in "Mount St. Helens: Eruption and Recovery of a Volcano," by Rob Carson, 1990, 2000, Sasquach Books, Seattle, WA, 160 pp. See pages: 66, 72, 73, 102, 107, 109, 151, 152, 156. Passing mention is also made in "Mt St. Helens--in pictures: The Continuing Story, by James P. Quiring, 1994, KC Publications, Inc., See pp. 34, 39 and 42.Here are some links with more information, for those interested.
http://www.nwcreation.net/presentations/geology/sld034.htm
Mount St. Helens: Evidence in Support of Biblical CatastrophismNote also the the Large canyon was NOT carved by the small Toutle river although it does now flow through the middle of this canyon -- just as the Colorado River now flows through the Grand Canyon.Also, note that the Mississippi is at least 10 times bigger than the Colorado river, and yet it hasn't carved out any canyon to speak of. How do you explain that? Austins View makes a LOT more sense.PS: I also was well aware that Nevins changed his name to Austin. Big Deal.Randy Berg

It is possible that such a thing occurred. It wouldn't be surprising to have RandyB refer back to attempts to figure out the age of the earth at the end of the 17th century. At that time all sorts of clues were used to try and arrive at an estimate.Th idea that this is relevant today is as good as other ideas he comes up with.

Sorry I forgot to mention Bell, and Duff and Walton in my list of authors who have admitted that various (if not many) of the upright trees in the Joggins and/or Sydney strata are missing their roots.Randy B.

Bill Pontificates: Another reason that Young Earth creationists are held in such disrespect and disdain, and often regarded with great humor is that they cite resources that have been rendered obsolete and antiquated since their publication by subsequent research. That Randy B. recommends Dana's (1894) book only illustrates that a person has to ignore almost a century of research, except for...Sorry Bill, but you OFTEN have referred the reader to the Talkorigins website: that has had on its site MacRae's paper on the Polystrate Fossils -- based on Dawson's 1868 book. So I say again, if is was good enough for MacRae, then it's Good enough for me. I also have a LOT more respect for the Geologists of the 1800's than I do for most modern ones -- for the simple reason that they were willing to admit that a good MANY of the upright trees of Joggins and Sydney Don't have ANY evidence of attached roots.Therefore the date of Dana's book does not nullify what he said. In fact the only thing I find fault with his drawings are the purely hypothetical "time" periods that he accepted.Perhaps you would also (at this time) care to tell us how you think that (purely hypothetical) first mycoplasma got itself going.Randy Berg

Edge (?) said: You know, Randy, this would be a good place to support your argument with a reference. Give us a reference in which a German, English, Canadian or American lawyer or geologist uses coal to convince the rest of the world that the earth is old.And Then Nosey Ned said: It is possible that such a thing occurred....Randy: Sure is, and his name was Charles Lyell -- a lawyer who made geology his hobby.Nose Ned: The idea that this is relevant today is as good as other ideas he comes up with.Randy: Such as the two different Dinosaurs that are very clearly described in the Old Testment Book of Job (Chapters 40-41) -- written around 3000 years before the "modern" world acknowledged them. This is also the book that is verified by Archeologists as an accurate account of historical events and authenticated by the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found in 1948 -- that were themselves about 2000 years old. And that mentions city after know city along with MANY other real persons of History. But this, of course isn't important to you because it completely destroys the Geological Time Table (I mean Fable) -- that is itself based on a theory that is now bankrupt.Randy Berg

Yep, and I suppose the Mississippi Valley was cut by a different stream, too. I notice that you avoided my question on this. Why am I not surprised? Just what do you base your analysis on? Other than personal incredulity, that is. LOL! You are comparing a 100 feet deep canyon cut in unconsolidated pyroclastics for 17 miles compared to a 5000 feet deep canyon cut in lithified shelf sediments and about 200 miles long!. Suuuuuure, Randy, that's a good comparison. Well, if they call it the Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River, it MUST be similar to the Grand Canyon! I mean, that does it for me! Oh yeah, was that written by Steve Austin or Stuart Nevins, and how would you know?And, of course it has never been told to the public. That is because there is nothing unusual about this. Oh, you mean Stuart Nevins! That makes everything clear, now. So where is the canyon in Monument Valley? THat is what we were talking about. Actually the Mississippi 'Canyon' is just so broad that you don't see it.You also need to explain the entrenched meanders of the Colorado River in the GC. (Hmm, I'm sure I've seen this question asked before). Okay, Randy, you find me a 200 mile canyon cut by a volcanic mudflow that left no evidence of its presence and I'll give you this one.However, you still need to prove to me that the geometrly of tributaries are all point in the upstream direction. Did you forget that one, also?

LOL! This from a person who cites ICR, AIG, and someplace called 'earthage'; and even trusts Steve Austin (or was it Stuart Nevins?) as a credible source. This is rich!

Wrong century for you original quote isn't it? Never mind. As I requested earlier, please document.

Does it really matter, edge?A number of ways were used back then to try to estimate the earth's age.Since we can now do an absolute age with processes that occur at a measureable rate (radiometric dating) the old ways of judgeing are long obsolete.The fact that someone considers this an issue to bring up shows some pretty strange thinking to me. We by passed all that long ago but RandyB's source says:

quote:

---

The theory of coal formation is central to the Age of the Earth debate

---

How could this rough estimate technique possibly be "central" to the debate more than half a century after it was completly obsoleted?