quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
"lithification of the Grand Canyon."
--When Mt. Saint Helens erupted, it created a still massive miniature Canyon 1/40 the size of the Grand Canyon. Producing enormously tall vertical canyons of strata created by that one catastrophe. Still standing there today and slowely becoming even more like the Grand canyon today through erosion. That little stream flowing at the bottom of it is not what created the canyon as is known from Mt. Saint Helens.
Percy covers this in message 158. His information is more complete than mine, so I’ll leave it there.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Mark said:
"None of the rocks that were deposited 6 months ago can be described as partially lithified. So, the rocks MUST have been in their hardened state 4,500 years ago, the Colorado river simply could NOT have eroded to the depth it has, in 4,500 years."
TC said:
--Most defenantly the Colorado river didn't create the Grand canyon the way it is today, Rather it was a mass of water that would be similar if you blew up hoover damm.
I doubt the hoover damn would erode a mm of rock if it was blown, probably much, much less. The event would be over quickly. Even if a lake at the top of the canyon emptied its entire contents, it’s a finite event. This is solid, fully lithified rock, not the unconsolidated ash at Mt. St. Helens. Consider for a moment how much water could be collected in a year if the Colorado rivers outpourings were collected over that year. Now take it back to the top, & release it in one go. At best, you get one years erosion, a very small fraction of a mm.
Despite creationist (website) claims that water eroded through 100 foot at Mt. St. Helens, this was not the case. It flowed across easily erodible volcanic deposits and caused rapid degradation and aggradation at cross-sections established downstream (Paine, 1984)." (percy message 158).
Besides which, you miss the point. If the flood deposited sedimentary strata, it WOULD NOT be the fully lithified strata we see today. See message 88;
"Just the hardening of 700 feet of limestone would require 1.6 million years!"
"80,000 - 90,000 years of infilling is required to harden a carbonate layer ONLY 10 meters thick with a constant source of ionic solution bottom to top. Flood conditions are generally antagonistic to such chemical reactions."
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Mark said:
"So please present evidence that the Grand Canyon was made in a couple of years."
TC said:
--Mt. Saint helens created a miniature Grand canyon in less than a Day.
No, it didn’t, US Army Engineers did.
So, please present evidence that the Grand Canyon was made in a couple of years.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
mark24 said:
"I would be interested to hear the Mississippi flood theory. Please include references, if rates of deposition, or other data, is going to be quoted."
TC said:
--From where the Mississippi river starts to its end there is only a I believe 600 or 900 ft. difference in that long length of land. When the flood happend and it receded off the continents it would not be nearly as catastrophic as the areas in the rockies to for Grand canyon. The mississippi only has a looping meandering formation, and is without steep edges. Signifying that when it receded it would have been a slower, calmer effect. Picture yourself on the beach, and get about 30 ft away from the water and take a, say, large 100 gallon cooler, fill it with water, and put it on the 30 ft mark on the ground and open that little flap that makes water pour out as if to fill a glass of water. Make a pre created path say less than a centimeter in depth in a wiggly line (not too wiggly) down too the beach with your finger and watch the water flow. You will see that it will flow in the direction that the path will take it, alowing it to be a meandering flow. Now take the cooler and fill it up again and instead of letting it flow like so, dump the whole cooler on the beach, the result would be catastrophic if that beach were a segment of north america.
I don’t understand what your driving at. I understand the difference between young, & old rivers. I’m just not sure what relevance this has to the flood.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
TC said:
--Now they are talking about 4 ice ages and how 'recearchers concluded', but by what evidence to they conclude this from? Boulders being moved from their place of origin is evidence of an ice age...period, not millions of years, not multiple ice ages, or anything like that, they lack the specifics.
"No one knows exactly how the older ice ages fit into the sequence of about 18 Pleistocene ice ages."
--How did they come up with 18 ice ages then? Or would that just be their maximum.
"Further evidence of ice ages occurs in sediment near the mouths of rivers. Researchers discovered that, in some river mouths, sediment had built up at least four different times. Before each build-up, the rivers had washed away most of the older sediment."
--They are getting slightly specific in their evidences, but they are still quite vague, they did not at all address how they concluded that it was the result of four different buildups of sediments, or evidence for the rivers washing away the older sediment.
"The researchers concluded that the times of sediment build-up were interglacial periods."
--There they go again, right into what the researchers concluded, from this rather vague presentation of this 'evidence'.
--I could keep going on all through the article, but, I think I have made my point.
"That these evidences corroborate, is evidence of multiple ice ages."
--To corraborate the evidence, you must first identify the evidence. I could say that oceans means there is life on mars, but It wouldn't mean anything to you if I didn't explain to you why it does.
The corroborating evidence is that the various methods agree with multiple ice ages.
In addition to ocean temperatures derived from foraminifera.
1/ Two Creeks forest bed. Multiple layers of glacial till, with layers of forest soil inbetween.
2/ Mount Kea volcano. Glacial till deposits overlain by volcanic rocks, etc. Both K/Ar & C 14 methods show ice age maximums at 20,000, 55,000, 135,000, & 250,000 years BP. This is correlated by deep sea core derived temperatures.
3/ Pluvial Lakes. Lake Bonneville shows evidence of no less than 28 rises in level, combined with 28 separate glacial deposits going back to 800,000 years BP. Again, a correlation is seen.
These, along with other evidences, constitute a body of evidence that supports multiple glaciations to the point where it is unreasonable to deny the events.
There are more, but I'll confine myself to the three examples, as it's only partially relevent to the discussion. Also, FYI, up to 30 relatively recent glaciations have been identified.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
"Actually, a lot of the mammoths were in partial states of putrefaction, showing that freezing wasn’t necessarily immediate."
--Thats what I believe I just agreed to, I might not have been so clear though, I agree it did not have to be 'immediate', but within a short period of time, ie a couple hours to a couple days, possibly 2 weeks at the most, from the amazing condition we find their massive bodies so greatly preserved. Putrefacation can happen quite quickly though, it doesn't take years.
But if there was a single event, why are some hanging around waiting to be frozen, whilst others are frozen IMMEDIATELY. There is nothing catastrophic about frozen mammoths. Nothing that points to a single event above separate freezing events.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
"I’ve previously linked magnetic variations & seafloor spreading as evidence of relative constancy of seafloor spreading.
Staying on magnetism. The horizontal sedimentation on the seabed corroborates the ages of the basalt anomalies, as different sedimentary ages (layer upon layer) are also aligned by magnetic polarity, providing evidence that sedimentation was laid down slowly over millions of years, & not in a single year. If the one year flood were true, no magnetic anomalies would appear in the deposits.
If you have evidence of sea floor spreading as evidence of the flood, please present it. The observations I make, point away from a catastrophic flood, sea floor spreading has been relatively uniform."
--Actually there is evidence that variations in polarity were absolutely inconceivably high at one point in time.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3397.asp
quote:
A decade ago, Prvot and Coe (and colleagues) reported in three papers the evidence they had found of extremely rapid changes of the Earth’s magnetic field recorded in lava flows at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon (USA). Scientists regard Steens Mountain as the best record of a magnetic reversal because the volcano spewed out 56 separate flows during that episode, each of these rock layers providing time-lapse snapshots of the reversal. Within one particular flow, Prvot and Coe discovered that rock toward the top showed a different magnetic orientation than did rock lower down. They interpreted this to mean that the field shifted about a day during the few days it took the single layer to cool. Such a rate of change is about 500 times faster than that seen in direct measurements of the field today, so,
most geomagnetists dismissed the claim by applying the principle of least astonishment ‘it was easier to believe that these lava flows did not accurately record the changes in the earth’s magnetic field than to believe that there was something fundamentally wrong with the conventional wisdom of the day’
on the origin and history of the field.
There the story would have ended, except that Coe and Prvot have continued their painstaking work. Now they have reported that the rate at which the orientation of the ancient magnetic field rotated reached an astounding 6 per day over an 8-day period, and have argued that these field changes recorded in these lava flows at Steens Mountain do reflect changes in the Earth’s main magnetic field.
Prevot & Coes data relates to a period immediately after a polarity reversal, & the rapid sawtooth reversals appear to be a result of the near zero field intensity of the time. This effect needs study, but most definitely doesn’t falsify the dynamo theory of the earths magnetic field. So, Prevot & Coes phenomenon occurs at the time of reversal, when field strength is at a minimum, & is not indicative of the overlying change.
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/robera01/node4.html
Hawaiian lava flows which were erupted immediately following a geomagnetic reversal. They note that field intensities were low during the transition and unusually high in the interval immediately following the reversal, similar to the behavior observed in the Steens Mountain (Oregon) volcanic sequence [ Prvot et al., 1985]. A coherent picture therefore seems to be emerging that indicates that field intensities decay during a polarity chron, culminating in low values during the polarity transition, followed by a rebound to high intensities in the interval immediately after the transition. Nevertheless, the details of this asymmetrical saw-tooth paleointensity pattern of Valet and Meynadier [1993] will remain the subject of debate until such behavior is more widely observed.
I am tempted to leave this here, but feel the need to refute rapid polarity change as the norm, rather than a low field intensity effect.
Arguing from within your framework, I would expect this phenomenon to be well documented, since the volcanic/tectonic processes at the time, you claim were much, much higher, as such, so would be the rate of lava extrusion. If the magnetic polarity were frantically reversing, then this effect would be present in most lavas. But it isn’t.
Furthermore, sedimentation rates of deep sea cores are measured, & at no point is there any evidence of catastrophism. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that the sedimentation rate at any given location, is particularly different in earlier years, when lower layers of cores were deposited. In other words, surface sedimentation rate is entirely in concordance with the layers beneath it. These layers, show magnetic polarity reversals at large time intervals, currently in the 100,000s of years order, these are corroborated by the sea floor spreading stripes of polarity reversal.
Given the calm conditions necessary for deposition of this nature, it is reasonable to assume that it never occurred during such catastrophic conditions as the creationist flood. Yet the paleomagnetic layers are still there, corroborating the seafloor spreading basalt magnetic alignment.
All of this means that; Magnetic polarity stripes, velocity of seafloor spreading measurements, & sea floor cores magnetically aligned sedimentary layers, remains as evidence of the relative constancy of sea floor spreading.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
"You cannot supply a mechanism that explains the deposition of the fossils."
--I do believe I can, as fossil succession is dependent an many variables and factors, not just hydrologic sorting, and habitat.
But you haven’t supplied a mechanism that explains the deposition of fossils. If you can, please do, but make it exhaustive.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Graptolites. Extinct since early carboniferous. Colonial animals equipped with floats. In other words, they float, not sink. So why are they in the Carboniferous & not the Pleistocene?
Ammonites. There are three different orders, alike in size & outward appearance, but appear in different rocks (slight overlap). The last appeared in the Cretaceous. Again, they ALL float, so why the early deposition?"
--G whiz, I respect this but I think it is a little much all at once wouldn't you say? Too much information to comment on in just one post, even you would agree I would hope. Pick some so we can start somewhere, this is a little much.
Most of the examples are in message 88, & have built up since we began discussing fossil deposition. So, to be fair, I haven’t suddenly hit you with a list.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
"Why bats & pterosaurs aren’t found together, indeed, why pterosaurs are extinct at all, given potential small size, pneumatic bones etc."
--It would seem that they would be located in relatively the same strata wouldn't it, as even in the condition of the Flood they would seem to fly for a little bit and after they are tired of flapping as soon as they hit water they can't survive and can't survive on driftwood unless the ocean is extreamly calm which would not be the case as they both are thought to 'wobble' in their walk, ie pterosaurs menuver on the ground the way bats do, extreamly ineffective in an attempt to survive a larger portion of the flood though a bat would be able to survive easier from its size. Also something to grasp is that bats are mammals haveing the adaptations of a mammal and pterosaurs are reptiles, thus to the best of our knowledge cold-blooded. The bat would be more effective.
A pterosaur could just as easily cling to driftwood with birds & bats, it’s not like they have to run around, they just have to hang on. There’s absolutely nothing else to do for 190 days, so why not? The larger 40 foot wingspan species may have flown like albatrosses, only landing to mate, eating fish scooped from water whilst on the wing. Why does being cold blooded particularly exclude them? Insects survived by clinging to driftwood, according to you. Pterosaurs range hugely in size, & your explanation does not explain why a not a single species survived.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
"Why do shelled molluscs appear in the Cambrian & not at the bottom of the pre-cambrian? These babies go straight to the bottom. "
--molluscs have more effective menuverability than algae and would have been 'kicked up' and not deposited till the Cambrian. Sure they go straight to the bottom, but they don't just stay there when they are alive.
What? 'kicked up' and not deposited till the Cambrian . Most marine molluscs lack ANY locomotion (clams, mussels, etc.). They are denser, they should be at the bottom. If kicking up stops bivalve molluscs not being deposited until the Cambrian, then NOTHING should be deposited before them, but curiously single celled organisms are, the ones that should be the last to be dropped from suspension.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
"There are species of rodents, felines, bats, primates, proboscideans etc. that are all mammals, & exist in the same habitats, that are the same size, are all hairy, subsist with the same lifestyle etc. Yet still are not found in the same aged sediments as other similar sized examples of rodents, felines, bats, primates, proboscideans etc! Given the factors leading to their depostion, they should be. Same is true of all taxonomic classifications."
--What exactly are the factors they are going by? It seems to be just shape characteristics and habitat.
What characteristics do you want to go by? I’m just giving examples of organisms that should be deposited together, but aren’t. When you present your explanatory model, I will have more to rail against.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
"Why are cetaceans & nothosaurs, plesiosaurs, & icthyosaurs not found together, they are all marine, & all air breathers."
--unlike cetaceans, the nothosaurs, plesiosaurs, & icthyosaurs are reptiles, cetaceans are mammals, thus contributing to the ability to adapt as a mammal.
Please offer detailed reasoning why this is so.
Why should a mammal be more adaptive than a reptile? The reptiles managed to keep the mammals on a short leash for all of the Mesozoic, so they’re not that hot.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
"When cetaceans float, their lungs can fill with water, making them denser than water, making them sink. Ray finned fishes that have enclosed swim bladders, that can’t fill with water. So cetaceans, nothosaurs, plesiosaurs & icthyosaurs should exist below the first ray finned fish."
--This assumes that they were dead when they were burried, which would be extreamly rare and possibly never happend in the fossil record. If they were burried, dead or alive, it was a rapid burrial.
Well, even if they were alive, the same is true. Why are they not found in rock as old as the first ray finned fishes, alive or dead? Some whales can dive deeper than most fish, why aren’t they below fish if they were buried alive?
This assumes that they were dead when they were burried, which would be extreamly rare and possibly never happend in the fossil record.
Have to ask you to back this up.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Multicellular life is found at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, the lowest surface point on the planet, so I would expect these arthropods at the bottom of pre Cambrian sediment, along with shelled molluscs, & (not) single celled organisms."
--Why would lower surface point contribute toward a different burrial sequence?
"Single celled life in the oceans exist as phytoplankton in the upper layers, & are not distributed uniformly. The last to be deposited, not the first."
--Emphesize?
In message 145 you said, Microbes are found all throughout the geologic column because they are all throughout water, they would be burried and would die quickly from the heat and unlike fish, they don't float to the top.
Based purely on hydrodynamic sorting, no single celled organism will drop from suspension until the waters are sufficiently calm, 4/5th of the fossiliferous record is made primarily of single celled organisms. The earliest organisms found are single celled. This is a contradiction.
Even if it wasn’t, you are still claiming that because microbes are found throughout the water, they will be buried accordingly, I am pointing out that there are organisms that exist at the lowest point on earth, & as such, should be at the bottom of the fossiliferous record. They aren’t.
You can’t have it both ways.
Incidentally, since the heat killed the microbes, why didn’t ALL other marine animals die? To quote you again from above, This assumes that they were dead when they were burried, which would be extreamly rare and possibly never happend in the fossil record. So why would ANYTHING be alive, given the heat? In one argument you need things to be dead, so they can be buried, in another you need them alive, so they can’t. In one argument you need fish to all die early, in another, you need them to die late (see previous posts between myself & TC).
You CAN’T have it both ways.
This is exactly the reason you are required to present a flood model that is actually going to stick to one story, to avoid these silly contradictions.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
"Grass, a flowering plant appears in the fossil record. Given grass floats to the bottom quite fast (your words), it should appear much sooner. It’s decay is irrelevant, it is COMMON in the record."
--As is evident by fossil pollen in pre-cambrian/cambrian strata as I was unaware of earlier, flowering plants must have existed to produce this pollen.
That there is pollen in the Hakatai Shale is hotly debated amongst creationists themselves. So I wouldn’t get too excited. Do you know of any non-creation scientist/paleontologists that have been able to duplicate the results of the CRS?
Nevertheless, this still goes entirely against hydrodynamic sorting, these tiny particles should be the last to be deposited, not first. Even if the pollen does turn out to be truly of pre-cambrian origin, it STILL presents an obstacle to your flood scenario, for this reason.
The FACT remains that no angiosperm fossils have been found before the late cretaceous, ESPECIALLY grasses. So, grass floats to the bottom quite fast (your words), Why isn't it found much lower?
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
"What you need is a coherent model that can be applied anywhere. I put it to you that such a thing cannot exist without contradiction. Ergo, the fossils were not deposited in the biblical flood scenario."
--It seems there is an abundance of variables and factors that would contribute, and shouldn't be ignored.
So, you have claimed that creation science is actually scientific, well, here’s your chance.
Present a model of organic sorting that takes into consideration all the criteria to account for the current state of the fossil record. It should take into account an abundance of variables and factors that would contribute, and shouldn't be ignored.
I put it to you that such a thing cannot exist without contradiction, & is therefore worthless. You can argue that pterosaurs must have become extinct in the flood , until the cows come home. But until you can show it with a testable hypothesis, confirming evidence, & potential falsifications, you convince no one. Until then it’s unscientific waffle.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
"I get 6 miles from Everest being (nearly) 6 miles above sea level. I have shown with seafloor spreading that nothing catastrophic occurred from a plate tectonic point of view. Everest was roughly the same height 4,500 years ago. "
--Everest along with the Himalayas was a little hill during the flood. These extra miles are not needed, as we can use the same amount of water as is in the oceans today.
"You require creationist ideas to show that Everest wasn’t 6 miles high, to show that your theory works. Circular argument."
--I can't find the circularity
"Evidence of world geography in that day pls."
--It would be as if you highered ocean basins and lowered mountain ranges, what contredicts it.
That the ocean basins rose, & mountain ranges lowered is assertion, not evidence. You have no evidence that highered ocean basins and lowered mountain ranges existed shortly before 4,500 years ago. Blind assertion.
You require the Truth of scripture as rationale to propose the events you describe, in order to show the bible as the inerrant Truth. That is the circularity. You need the bible to show the bibles Truth.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
"If it was giving birth, & both mother & infant died with the infant half in half out, is still death during childbirth. This doesn’t necessarily mean it was rapidly buried, but possibly came to rest on seabed with high H2S content preventing scavenging & decay. Nevertheless if it was rapidly buried, so what? landslide ? Its not evidence that 1/ The animal was killed because of burial, & 2/ That its burial was of a catastrophic nature."
--Though interesting and even relevant, what are the odds of that happening? Also how would a land slide constitute for the burrial of massive shcools of fish?
I gave landslide as a possible example. It’s not that unlikely, landslides occur all the time, multiplied by half a billion years makes a lot of landslides. It doesn’t have to be a landslide, the bodies falling to the bottom in levels of toxicity, or poor oxygen levels, enough to slow decay until burial.
I never said landslides accounted for schools of fossil fish.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
"In fact there are marine fossils of Icthyosaurs & Plesiosaurs in rock with high sulphur content, indicative of Hydrogen Sulphide. Further backed up by the non discovery of ANY bottom dwellers. That is to say, the reptiles died, floated to the bottom, & due to the antiseptic nature of the seafloor, were preserved for slow burial. The H2S prevents bottom dwelling scavengers making a living. Further evidence of non-catastrophic fossil deposition."
--Does this bring decay to a halt as it is very well preserved. And how many hundreds or thousands of years would you allow for burrial or can we agree that it was a rapid burrial from by its greatly preserved details?
The burial under these conditions doesn’t have to be particularly rapid (it is possible to completely stop decay). Human bones in good aerobic conditions take in excess of a decade to decay. So a 500 years + in high hydrogen sulphide concentrations doesn’t seem too unrealistic, that’s ONLY 1/50th of the decay rate in aerobic conditions. The bodies only need a couple of years/decades to be buried, if in shallow sea, deltaic areas, or be subject to sedimentation via turbidity currents, or to have died over a sediment trap.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
"None of these provide evidence of a flood, but hint at proposed mechanisms for it. All the above are explained adequately by mainstream geology. I need evidence that those mechanisms hinted at, were actually responsible."
--If it doesn't contredict the Flood then it is good evidence thereof as much as the ToE if not more accurately portrayed.
TC, this is very poor logic. A thunderstorm doesn't contradict the flood, but isn't evidence of it.
You have claimed on other threads that scientific creationism is scientific.
Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Continental Shelves and Slopes
Ocean Trenches
Seamounts and Tablemounts
Earthquakes
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil Formations
Major Mountain Ranges
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Metamorphic Rock
Limestone
Salt Domes
Again, please show what catastrophic mechanism caused the above features, with a testable hypothesis, confirming evidence, & potential falsifications. Creation SCIENCE, no less.
I’m particularly interested in what’s going on beneath the earths crust, & why, if you can’t show this, then the above features have nothing to do with a flood.
Again, anything less is unscientific waffle.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-24-2002]
™ Version 4.2
