Global Flood?

[Calypsis4]

Son: Hey, dad, What do ya think of all these dead fossil-like trees?

Professor: Right. They've been becoming like that over millions of years.

Son: But Dad, why are so many still standing? Why didn't they rot and go back to the soil?

Professor: There are several theories about how that happened, son.

Son: But none of the ones we've seen have roots or even bark. How could they stand up for millions of years without deteriorating?

Professor: Uh.....:o...Let me get my laptop out and I'll check with talk/origins.

 

[Mallon]

Boy: Wow, grandpa, this canyon is a pretty big one. Why'd you bring me here?

Grandpa: Cuz I want you to see how canyons are made.

Boy: This must be the 'Grand Canyon' they tell us about at school. It musta took jillions of yrs to get like this, right grandpa?

Grandpa: Nope. It's the canyon caused by Mount St. Helens and it was carved out in one day, the day of the eruption in 1980.

Boy: You mean that stream of water didn't carve it out over jillions of yrs?

Grandpa: Nope. It happened in a very short time.

Boy: What's that picture you got there in your hand, grandpa?

Grandpa: A picture of the Grand Canyon.

Boy: Wow, it's a lot bigger. I guess it took a few more days to make that canyon, huh, gramps?

Grandpa: You're catching on fast, boy.

You left out the rest of the conversation...

Boy: Say, grandpa, according to the YEC model, isn't the Flood also supposed to have deposited the miles of sediment that bound the Grand Canyon? If so, why aren't the sides of the canyon walls slumped, as we would expect if the Flood carved the canyon out of the soft sediment it just deposited?

Grandpa: I dunno, boy. I don't allow myself to think about that. It's dangerous. The devil's in the details, you know.

Boy: Also, have you ever heard about mammilary deposits?

Grandpa: No. What are those?

Boy: They're calcium carbonate precipitates that take a along time to form and mark the boundary of the water table. I hear the Grand Canyon's walls are actually marked by many layers of mammilary deposits, suggesting that the canyon itself was not simply formed in one fell swoop, but was actually gradually carved over time by the descending Colorado River. What do you make of that?

Grandpa: Don't talk to me, boy.

 

[Mallon]

Son: Hey, dad, What do ya think of all these dead fossil-like trees?

Professor: Right. They've been becoming like that over millions of years.

Son: But Dad, why are so many still standing? Why didn't they rot and go back to the soil?

Professor: There are several theories about how that happened, son.

Son: But none of the ones we've seen have roots or even bark. How could they stand up for millions of years without deteriorating?

Professor: Uh.....:o...Let me get my laptop out and I'll check with talk/origins.

Son: So what does the talk/origins website say, Dad?

Professor: Oh, it actually has a perfectly reasonable explanation here:

CC331: Polystrate fossils and deposition

Son: Gee, that explanation makes total sense! I have no way to refute it. It was downright ignorant of me to assume that geologists believe ALL geologic processes occur over periods of millions of years. Now I know better and will never make that mistake again.

 

[granpa]

so, basically, the uniformitarian explanation is that it isnt due to uniform deposition

 

[Calypsis4]

Expert: Hello?

Geologist: "George, we've got a problem here?"

Expert: What's that?

Geologist: "We got something from an ice core sample at 264 ft below the surface and we can't figure it out what we hit."

Expert: Describe it?

Geologist: It's very hard and it's green. That's all we know right now.

Expert: Well, at that depth, it should be dated back 3 to 4 hundred yrs.

Geologist: I'll get back with you later.

Later....

Geologist: George, that find can't possibly be 3 to 4 hundred yrs of age.

Expert: Oh, it has to be. Ice corps samples are almost an absolute science. What did you find there?

George: Uh...:o

 

[Mallon]

so, basically, the uniformitarian explanation is that it isnt due to uniform deposition

"Uniformitarianism" is the position that all geological processes occur at slow, uniform rates. Obviously, this isn't true. Some processes occur rapidly (e.g., landslides) and some occur slowly (e.g., mammilary deposits). So to label modern geology as "uniformitarian" in nature is just false. A better term would be "actualism".

At any rate, I think I'll stop replying to C4 now. I hope I've demonstrated that he has no idea what he's talking about. He certainly hasn't made any effort to address my refutations, opting instead to pile baloney on top of baloney.

 

[granpa]

GLACIER GIRL P-38

nothing on that page suggests that there is anything unusual about the depth of the plane.

 

[Calypsis4]

Student: Professor, what is this?

Professor: A skeleton of a person who died during a volcanic eruption.

Student: Wow. Did that take millions of yrs?

Professor: No. We know it happened about 20 centuries ago near Mt. Vesuvius. See his ring?

Student: Well, I guess that proves that, huh?

Professor: Right.

Student: But what about this. Look at those animals!

Professor: Velociraptor vs Protoceratops. Outer Mongolia.

Student: Really? Did the same thing happen to them?

Professor: Of course not. That took millions of years to fossilize.

Student: But how do you know that? How could they stand like that for millions of years awaiting fossilization?

Professor: Do you see any rings on those fingers?

 

[Mallon]

(C4 doesn't seem to realize that palaeontologists don't actually argue that the process of burial takes millions of years.)

 

[Calypsis4]

Creationist: Here is some more strata. How do you date it?

Darwinian: This layer is 70 million yrs. That one is 40 million. And this one is 12 million give or take several million.

Creationist: Let's take a walk around this formation and take another look.

Creationist: And how old is the tree which juts through all of the strata?

Darwinian: uh, (cough, cough)...between 12 & 70 million yrs.

Creationist: Really?

Darwinian: Yes, really? Say, what's that you've got there.

Creationist: pictures of some dead and rotting trees in my back yard.



Darwinian: When did they die?

Creationist: about five years ago.

Darwinian: So why did you bring that along with you?

Creationist: (leaning his head towards the polystrate fossil) Three guesses.

 

[Mallon]

Why do you persist in being so dishonest, C4?

 

[granpa]

link?

 

[Calypsis4]

Scientist: Take a look at this ridiculous depiction of what creationists think happened during the flood. What do you think of that?

Son: Yeah, it's pure idiocy. Even if it were true, if there was such a massive amount of water moving over the earth you would think it would leave some evidence. Right, Dad?

Scientist: Right.

Son: Say, how long do you think it will take to get through Monument Valley?

Scientist: Bored with the scenery, son?

Son: Naw, most of the west looks similar to this.

Scientist: A lot of it does. Those poor dumb creationists: still no evidence for a world, wide flood. (Yawn).

 

[Mallon]

Scientist: Take a look at this ridiculous depiction of what creationists think happened during the flood. What do you think of that?

Son: Yeah, it's pure idiocy. Even if it were true, if there was such a massive amount of water moving over the earth you would think it would leave some evidence. Right, Dad?

Scientist: Right.

Son: Say, how long do you think it will take to get through Monument Valley?

Scientist: Bored with the scenery, son?

Son: Naw, most of the west looks similar to this.

Scientist: A lot of it does. Those poor dumb creationists: still no evidence for a world, wide flood. (Yawn).

In your first post, you said that oceans were evidence for a global flood. Now you're saying that deserts are. That doesn't seem very consistent.

 

[Calypsis4]

Son: Dad, this has been such a great trip. Nearly 3,000 miles of driving and still no evidence for the so-called Genesis flood.

Scientist: Right, son. I told you that you couldn't believe those Bible thumpers at church.

Son: Yeah, I think I will probably quit going after all this. By the way, where are we headed now?

Scientist: On the way home we are going to stop at this great museum that's got the most fabulous fossil shark you've ever seen. The thing is virtually perfectly preserved.

Son: Really? Where did they find the shark?

Scientist: In Kansas.

 

[Mallon]

Son: Dad, this has been such a great trip. Nearly 3,000 miles of driving and still no evidence for the so-called Genesis flood.

Scientist: Right, son. I told you that you couldn't believe those Bible thumpers at church.

Son: Yeah, I think I will probably quit going after all this. By the way, where are we headed now?

Scientist: On the way home we are going to stop at this great museum that's got the most fabulous fossil shark you've ever seen. The thing is virtually perfectly preserved.

Son: Really? Where did they find the shark?

Scientist: In Kansas.

(That's not a shark.)

 

[Calypsis4]

Astronaut # 1: Well, it's been a great journey, gentlemen. Shall we resume our debate?

Astronaut # 2: Sure. Still only twelve hours to splash down.

Astronaut # 3: Right. Say John, I still want to know why you believe in the world-wide destruction of earth by the Genesis flood. I don't get that at all.

Astronaut # 2: Well, besides God's Word on the matter there is a lot of evidence for its occurrence.

Astronaut # 3: Oh? Well, even if there was a world-wide flood then where did all the water go?

Astronaut # 2: (leans his shoulder against the cockpit window and rolls his eyes).

 

[Calypsis4]

Quote: "This prehistoric shark fossil is exhibited at the University of Kansas Natural History Museum. Many shark fossils were found in Kansas."
Multimedia Reporting (Broholm-Carroll): November 2009 Archives

Sharks 'evolve', right?

 

[Calypsis4]

A creationist speaker was lecturing a high school science class.

Creationist: Next a fossil that is dated about 30 million yrs old by evolutionists. But it was buried rapidly and fossilized quickly.

(laughter)

Student: Where in the ocean was this fish found?

Creationist: It wasn't. It was found in the French Alps.

Student: Plate tectonics! plate tectonics!

Creationist: Slow and gradual processes that move by inches per year made that fish into a fossil?

Student: So he was a slow fish.

 

[Mallon]

Quote: "This prehistoric shark fossil is exhibited at the University of Kansas Natural History Museum. Many shark fossils were found in Kansas."
Multimedia Reporting (Broholm-Carroll): November 2009 Archives

Sharks 'evolve', right?

It's not a shark. Your source is wrong. It's an osteoglossomorphan fish called Xiphactinus. Don't let details bog you down, though. You haven't let them so far.