Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
--Have you ever read the actual literature, or do you just jump in gung-ho and swallow everything you read on the internet that appears to contradict young earth geology? I've read some of the literature on the Specimen ridge fossil forests the implications don't seem too contradictory. Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe they don't falsify a global flood, or are you busy making preliminary conclusions?
Look you are the one pushing CPT. This is what Baumgardner himself says about CPT
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...aumgardner.asp
Sounds to me like all the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments are being deposited by very violent processes. So how do we get animal tracks, nests and eggs in both the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments?
--Is John Baumgardner the infallable YEC? Nope. This is a suggested hypothesis. Heck, paleomagnetic data may be a very good tool to test the hypothesis. I think it is possible that it could work for various extensive strata, but I havent looked into it, have you? The existance of fossil tracks, nests, eggs, mud cracks, fluvial currents etc. depend on the depositional environment. Again, you cannot simulate a global flood in a bathtub.
--Have you ever read the actual literature, or do you just jump in gung-ho and swallow everything you read on the internet that appears to contradict young earth geology? I've read some of the literature on the Specimen ridge fossil forests the implications don't seem too contradictory. Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe they don't falsify a global flood, or are you busy making preliminary conclusions?
He just listed one site there. If you will look through the rest of the SCE forums you will notice that there are quite a number of threads pointing out all manner of ways in which the Flood story is false. He may have made premature conclusions on the topic due to his own personal bias but there is a tremendous amount of evidence to back him up.
__________________
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum. (I think I think, therefore I think I am.)
--Thats exactly why I said what I said. Is it not considerable that the link he cited just might not be correct (or at least in regads to the Eocene Yellowstone fossil forests at specimen ridge)
If you will look through the rest of the SCE forums you will notice that there are quite a number of threads pointing out all manner of ways in which the Flood story is false.
--Is it possible that I cannot refute all of these arguments because I havent done the relevant research? Is it possible that if I had done the relevant research, that I could put up a feasible rebuttal? I think so.
He may have made premature conclusions on the topic due to his own personal bias but there is a tremendous amount of evidence to back him up.
--Well then I hope he's read plenty more than just that link if he really does have "a tremendous amount of evidence to back him up" on the topic.
--Thats exactly why I said what I said. Is it not considerable that the link he cited just might not be correct (or at least in regads to the Eocene Yellowstone fossil forests at specimen ridge)
Of course but in general I give things the benefit of the doubt until proven false.
--Is it possible that I cannot refute all of these arguments because I havent done the relevant research? Is it possible that if I had done the relevant research, that I could put up a feasible rebuttal? I think so.
Get crackin' boy! You can always find evidence to back up the beliefs you already hold. I generally don't place too much trust in anything on the internet since there is so much slanted stuff, I stick to logic rather than data on the web.
--Well then I hope he's read plenty more than just that link if he really does have "a tremendous amount of evidence to back him up" on the topic.
You really need to look at the other threads in this forums.
__________________
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum. (I think I think, therefore I think I am.)
Of course but in general I give things the benefit of the doubt until proven false.
--I hope thats not frumious's position also..
Get crackin' boy! You can always find evidence to back up the beliefs you already hold.
--You make it sound so easy. It really isn't. I've spent nearly a year doing research on the issue of heat flow and the bathymetric profile on the ocean floor and thats like what? One or two issues out of hundreds of thousands to millions of questions relevant to the age of the earth and CPT geodynamics? Something like that.
I generally don't place too much trust in anything on the internet since there is so much slanted stuff, I stick to logic rather than data on the web.
--As well as the scientific literature relevant to your particular inquiry.
You really need to look at the other threads in this forums.
--Has specimen ridge or other fossil forests been a topic for discussion in other threads?
--I think I've probably heard most of them. Even if I read the threads in these forums on biogeography, is that going to give me enough information to discuss the issue? I would be dreaming. There are numerous books as well as scientific journals devoted to this topic of study. Not to mention that it is a very comprehensive subject. The same for other subjects such as cosmology, paleontology, etc.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Last edited by TrueCreation; 13th October 2003 at 07:39 PM.
--I hope thats not frumious's position also..
--You make it sound so easy. It really isn't. I've spent nearly a year doing research on the issue of heat flow and the bathymetric profile on the ocean floor and thats like what? One or two issues out of hundreds of thousands to millions of questions relevant to the age of the earth and CPT geodynamics? Something like that.
JM: Yes, there is a lot to learn. However, I'd like to see if we can return to the topic at hand. You see, if you can't identify the globally correlatable strata that document the flood, then we really can't discuss mechanisms and falsifications in any meaningful way. I ask you about paleosols in the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic and you say "Well the flood happened in the Precambrian". I ask you about the evaporites in the Precambrian and you say "well it was really the early Paleozoic strata that represent the flood". I ask about glacial deposits in the early Paleozoic and you move it to some other time. If a creationist will simply say "Here's the onset and it's seen on a global basis" and "here are the peak flood deposits globally" and "here's where the flood waters were fully receded" then we can discuss the geology and other models in a meaningful way. Otherwise, we talk past each other.
Have you ever read the actual literature, or do you just jump in gung-ho and swallow everything you read on the internet that appears to contradict young earth geology? I've read some of the literature on the Specimen ridge fossil forests the implications don't seem too contradictory. Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe they don't falsify a global flood, or are you busy making preliminary conclusions?
Actually I have studied this a bit have debated it before and I followed your desparate handwaving attempts to counter this falsification on the EvCforum where you got completely trounced by Edge and Bill Birkland so I may be more familiar with these arguments than you think though I only lurked in that discussion.
BTW Bill has posted yet another falsification of CPT on EvC some time ago based on sea floor sediments. I am sure everyone over there is eagerly awaiting your reply. You seem to have deserted your thread there.
Is John Baumgardner the infallable YEC? Nope. This is a suggested hypothesis. Heck, paleomagnetic data may be a very good tool to test the hypothesis. I think it is possible that it could work for various extensive strata, but I havent looked into it, have you? The existance of fossil tracks, nests, eggs, mud cracks, fluvial currents etc. depend on the depositional environment. Again, you cannot simulate a global flood in a bathtub.
Nice dodge. However, the simulation is Baumgardner's and you seem to have bought into it. Now you suddenly don't want to believe him. If he is so wrong about this then why believe his CPT models at all? Think it through. There are dinosaur tracks nests and eggs in strata that overly thousands of feet of strata that were supposedly flood deposits. According to CPT those layers were deposited by massive cyclonic currents sweeping over the continent. How was anything alive to make tracks?
How was anything alive to make tracks late in the flood in any flood model? Take for instance the dinosaur tracks in the Navajo Sandstones which are above all those other sediments of the Colorado Plateau. Of course some creationists consider those tracks to be post flood and some even consider the animal tracks in the Permian Coconino Sandstones to be post flood. I think this illustrates the point of the thread nicely. YECs try to move the flood boundary around at their convenience to overcome falsifications. You shouldn't have to do this. Consider what a massive event you are talking about with the huge energy releases involved in CPT. This is supposed to be a totally unique event global in scope. So why can't you even tell us where it stops and starts in the geologic record?
JM: Yes, there is a lot to learn. However, I'd like to see if we can return to the topic at hand. You see, if you can't identify the globally correlatable strata that document the flood, then we really can't discuss mechanisms and falsifications in any meaningful way. I ask you about paleosols in the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic and you say "Well the flood happened in the Precambrian". I ask you about the evaporites in the Precambrian and you say "well it was really the early Paleozoic strata that represent the flood". I ask about glacial deposits in the early Paleozoic and you move it to some other time. If a creationist will simply say "Here's the onset and it's seen on a global basis" and "here are the peak flood deposits globally" and "here's where the flood waters were fully receded" then we can discuss the geology and other models in a meaningful way. Otherwise, we talk past each other.
--I think that the problem is that there is so much data out there that could potentially alter those stratigraphic locations for the onset and end of the flood. All of this data must be brought together to form one coherent theory, but where are the laborers? Are we are to expect ICR to just go to the grand canyon, take a couple samples and come back with these conclusions? Of course not. A lack of laborers is not my argument, however. While it may take time, the data is out there and can be evaluated.
--The fact of the matter is, those evaporites, glacial deposits, paleosols and other geologic remnants can potentially be used in these analyses. What we can do, and have done, is taken some basic data such as is done in the Freode article and make some preliminary suggestions. As explained in the article, the preliminary data suggests that the Pre-flood/flood boundary is probably in the vicinity of the Cenozoic/Mesozoic or Paleozoic/Mesozoic. All we can do is build on this. I don't think it is very well appreciated that the advancement in our understanding of this issue will require modification as the new data comes under analysis. For example, I'm sure that if it was initially argued that the pre-flood/post-flood boundary were Cenozoic/Mesozoic and then it was subsequently shown to be implausible from some set of data, the suggestion that 'well maybe a global flood didn't happen at all' would pop up all over the place. Instead of falsification, this merely may indicate that the pre-flood/post-flood boundary is somewhere else. This line of reasoning also can apply to other geologic arguments against the floods occurence.
--To draw an example from the issue of the thermal evolution of the oceanic lithosphere, maybe the cooling history of the oceanic lithosphere isn't as simple, or nearly as simple as convective vs. conductive cooling regimes or altering the thermal diffusivity value.
As explained in the article, the preliminary data suggests that the Pre-flood/flood boundary is probably in the vicinity of the Cenozoic/Mesozoic or Paleozoic/Mesozoic.
Don't you mean flood/post flood boundary? I don't think you can figure out how to deposit the entire plaeozoic before the flood. Just want to be clear.
You can always find evidence to back up the beliefs you already hold. I generally don't place too much trust in anything on the internet since there is so much slanted stuff, I stick to logic rather than data on the web.
Linear Mode
