[sarcasm] What's even more amazing is that all this happened while the continents were on hydroplates speeding through the ocean faster than the Concorde could fly. Wonderful evidence for the flood. Truly amazing [/sarcasm]
[creationism]Majority of geologist are actually sa*an´s tools who have been brainwashed not to see all the evidence God has left us to see. It arrogant to assume that God could not have distorted every single law of nature so that the scriptural events could have taken place.[/creationism]
Temporary topic closure because of bogus messages coming in about 15 minutes. Trying to get in more bogasity before closure might trigger moose crankiness.
Reopen in maybe about 18 hours.
Added by edit: Topic was closed because of existing bogus messages, not that bogus messages were incoming (Well, it was to stop more bogus messages). The above should have be stated as "Temporary topic closure, because of bogus messages, coming in about 15 minutes." Although "Because of bogus messages, temporary topic closure coming in about 15 minutes" probably would have been even better.
See here for further clarification and perhaps a chuckle.
Now that the thread is open again, could we get some answers from one of the creationists who made very big claims? Could I have an answer from Just being real on
Could you please give any real-life example of where “fossils that pierce through “strata” that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart”? I simply don’t believe you. When I say an example, I don’t mean where creationists claim that “uniformitarian” geologists say this. I mean an example of where a “uniformitarian” geologist actually says this.
Jbr, you should be able to back up your claim. Without this, your whole argument collapses.
Could I also have an answer from Just being real on this:
Just being real, do you think that, for example, the Tournaisian Stage, Mississippi Epoch, Carboniferous Period (shown as one colour and one division in the geologic column), consists of one stratum deposited from around 345 to 359 million years ago at one constant sedimentary rate?
These are important questions, all involving basic claims creationists make.
Why do so many creationists ignore the very basic fundamentals of a subject they pretend to know so much about? They think they know so much that they 'know" that more than 99.99% of all the specialists on that subject are wrong. They should be able to back up their very profound claims with at least one reference. "Uniformatist" geologists can. With thousands of references.
Edited by Pressie, : Added a sentence or teo!
Edited by Pressie, : Erased the last sentence as it is not really applicable
The evidence of the rocks is only evidence they were created by processes. then its interpretation of what these processes were.
If massive water was working then there is no reason to see anything of the past as from slow minor processes of a quiet world today. in fact this is a common theme in ice age mega flood studies. They always , not creationists, are overthrowing old slow interpretations of geomorphology in regards to glacial covered areas.
The world was breaking up and so easily whole chunks of areas, like great states etc, would slide or be deposited on earlier layers that were moved about. like in ice river break ups great slabs of ice get tossed on top of other slabs of ice.
I've deemed the following green box material to be, at best, marginally on-topic. It belongs somewhere in the "Dates and Dating" forum. In this topic, be cautious about replying to this material - Adminnemooseus
I find this akin to saying, We want you to tell us about the American Independence Day, but you are not allowed to mention the date of July the Fourth Seventeen hundred and Seventy Six. If the "age" of the strata is the evidence, then how can we present "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood" without discussing the age of the strata? Remember, we are not talking about just any global flood, but a geologically RECENT global flood.
So the question is (since your the Man with all the power and his hand poised to pull the plug at any second), are we going to be permitted to discuss potential evidence for a global flood in the "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood" thread, or not?
If you read my post, above, I am referring to the initial claim by creationists of coal dating to 1680 years, instead of millions of years. This claim was made by Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weil in The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73). This preceded Baumgardner's RATE study by quite a few years.
I did read your post. And my point still stands. If you did not intend to insinuate some sort of equation between the charcoal incident and the RATE coal testing, then to bring it up was meaningless. If you told me of a fossil that scientists believed to be a transitional, and I threw Piltdown man out there, the intent would be obvious. Which btw brings me to another point. If you want to have a contest between creationist blunders and evolutionist blunders, there are just as many stones to throw in each camp. Obviously this would be a pointless endeavour.
Let me just stop you here. Firstly, you mention "trees, dinosaurs, fish, and other organisms" but your examples given are only of trees. That strikes me as significant.
Nothing significant about it. Trees just happen to be the most common and easiest to point to. But that doesn't mean the others don't exist. There is the 40-foot long Acrocanthosaurus dinosaur excavation on private property along the banks of the Paluxy River in 1984.
What also strikes me as significant is that trees grow into the ground, so the idea of a tree and its roots incurring itself through several deposited layers of soil, or a trunk finding itself buried under sedimentation doesn't strike me as unusual. Why should it, when we can look around and see it happening now?
I've never seen a tree start growing in a depth below a couple of feet. And I have never seen them grow through other layers sedementary ROCK. The trees you suggest are an example of doing this, again have not been found growing through even one let alone more than one seem of coal.
you appear to be continuing to make the same error in confusing age with process. When I say that my father's pocketwatch is 50 years old, that doesn't mean that it took 50 years to produce. Geological layers can be deposited relatively quickly.
No I totally get that you are saying the layers were laid down quickly, what I don't get is that they are sepperated by not 50 years, as in your dad's pocket watch analogy, but rather millions of years. And the trees are supposed to have waited around for each "quick" layer to cover more of it up, until it was eventually fully covered and then presevered. That sir, I do not get at all.
The newly observed pulses in Iceland make a point. That water can instantly segregate sediment .
The great flood can be imagined to have numerous things going on at the same time. The chaos here can have quiet areas there and then reverse it. Fine sediment could , as a option, be simply squeezed out of less fine sediment it came from in some case in the flood. I'm just saying all these details can be explained by the workings of water. In fact your fine sediment had to be buried to be preserved. This itself evidence of a single episode for the whole thing.
It just takes imagination to figure out all these details. Yet the finale thing is that the earth shows to have been covered in water to account for the layers of sedimentary rock in great depths below the k-t line. All deposited at once.
Modern processes are just simple quiet things. Yet increase the power of processes and one can see the origin of great earth results and diversity thereof. why not?
I've never seen a tree start growing in a depth below a couple of feet. And I have never seen them grow through other layers sedementary ROCK. The trees you suggest are an example of doing this ...
No they are not. They were partially covered by unlithified sediment. The sediment lithified after partially covering the tree. Not before.
What an effort it must take you guys to avoid grasping the bleedin' obvious.
The trees you suggest are an example of doing this, again have not been found growing through even one let alone more than one seem of coal.
That's because trees don't grow through coal. However, it is easy for a tree to have its base buried by a layer of peat, which is unlithified.
No I totally get that you are saying the layers were laid down quickly, what I don't get is that they are sepperated by not 50 years, as in your dad's pocket watch analogy, but rather millions of years.
No they aren't. This is why no-one ever ever ever said they were.
That sir, I do not get at all.
The fact that the scenario which you have made up in your head seems implausible even to you might serve as a hint that it is not the scenario asserted by geologists.
It just takes imagination to figure out all these details.
I think most of us are convinced that many of the "details" you're imagining are not possible, but let's leave that aside for now. This thread isn't about what you can imagine but what you can muster evidence for. "Evidence" is the second word of the thread's title. It's the primary noun in the title. Do you have any evidence supporting what you're imagining?
The creationist flood scenario has water pushing around large pieces of land, entire continents in some cases. In the recent Japan earthquake no land moved more than some 10's of feet, not miles, yet consider the amount of devastation from the tsunami. The Japan earthquake was minuscule compare to Noah's flood, yet it left evidence everywhere, including on the sea floor off Japan's coast where massive submarine landslides occurred and large debris field were deposited when the water from the tsunami's retreated. Thousands of years from now there will still be copious evidence of the 2011 Japan earthquake/tsunami.
It helps to note that nowhere did this disaster leave fine grained alternating layers of clay and sand. It left behind chaos and destruction, not delicate and finely grained deposits. So if your imagination is telling you that massive floods can actually deposit varve layers then you need evidence that it is indeed possible.
Don't get distracted by the varve example. The real message is that you have to begin bringing evidence into the discussion.
If you want to have a contest between creationist blunders and evolutionist blunders, there are just as many stones to throw in each camp. Obviously this would be a pointless endeavour.
Scientists correct their mistakes.
The coal/charcoal blunder started by Ham et al. can still be found widely on creationist websites years after it was shown to be incorrect. It is just one of many such bogus claims made by creationists which litter the internet.
The claims of C14 in diamonds and ancient coal made by the RATE boys is another such example. Those claims have been debunked, but still litter the internet.
If the case for creationism (and a global flood) was actually supported by evidence, why is so much false information found on creationist websites? Surely there is accurate information which supports their case?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.