YEC explanations

[Mallon]

One thing that is immediately obvious about this seemingly anonymous article is that its reference list is missing some key references. This added to the fact that many of the links in the entire article are dead does little to help the author’s case.

Between criticizing the article for being on a geocities website, for being anonymous, for having an incomplete reference list, and for citing Martin Lockley, you sure seem uninterested in actually examining the points made. No worries. Many of the same points are listed here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC365.html

I don’t see how anyone can take this guy seriously. I'm sorry, but I can't except this guy's opinion.

I might say the same about most creationists I've read; but I don't. Again, attack the research, not the researcher. Martin Lockley happens to be an extremely well respected and accepted trace fossil palaeontologist (in fact, he's the world's leading fossil footprint expert).

Nice jab at Creationists there though; especially since it was you that brought up the 30 year old source.

It was you who brought up the fact that it was 30 years old. I made no qualms about it. Just because the source is 30+ years old doesn't make it moot. But if you can point out more recent up-to-date Flood research, then I'm all ears. At this point, though, I don't see what this matters to our argument.

Do you concede that your questions are based on a false assumption or do you still think they are valid? You are free to change your questions if you like; I have no problem with that. But don’t keep saying “my questions still stand”.

Again, I am asking you to apply my questions to the Grand Canyon. I will state them nice and clear for you one last time.

1) How can the angular unconformities observed in the Grand Canyon be explained according to Flood geology?

2) According to Flood geology, how can terrestrial animals leave footprints, and raindrops leave rainprints, as preserved in the Grand Canyon?

And for good measure:

3) If the deposits at Joggins were laid down during the Flood, how does Flood geology explain the layering of rooted forests there?

e.g.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=445

http://www.ianjuby.org/jogginsa2.html

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Polystrate_fossils_indicate_massive_sudden_deposition

 

[Remus]

Between criticizing the article for being on a geocities website, for being anonymous, for having an incomplete reference list, and for citing Martin Lockley, you sure seem uninterested in actually examining the points made. No worries. Many of the same points are listed here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC365.html

It's basically the abridged version of the same article.

I might say the same about most creationists I've read; but I don't. Again, attack the research, not the researcher. Martin Lockley happens to be an extremely well respected and accepted trace fossil palaeontologist (in fact, he's the world's leading fossil footprint expert).

You should read the reviews of that second book on Amazon. It's kind of sad in a way really. Anyway, if this guy is so well respected, by all means defend him.

Again, I am asking you to apply my questions to the Grand Canyon. I will state them nice and clear for you one last time.

1) How can the angular unconformities observed in the Grand Canyon be explained according to Flood geology?

Which one(s) is/are the problem? I've only been able to find mention of unconformities below the Paleozoic layers. If you have one that is above this, then I need the information on it. If there's a problem with unconformities below the Paleozoic, then you'll have to explain why it would be a problem.

2) According to Flood geology, how can terrestrial animals leave footprints, and raindrops leave rainprints, as preserved in the Grand Canyon?

Brand addressed the footprints. The only mention of the raindrops I've found is from Lockley's second book. No one else says anything about that I've found. Do you have a source?

And for good measure:

3) If the deposits at Joggins were laid down during the Flood, how does Flood geology explain the layering of rooted forests there?

One of the creationist sites stated that only 1 in 50 have intact roots. Is this number incorrect?

 

[Mallon]

It's basically the abridged version of the same article.

Yes. But it's not on a GeoCities website and it's got a complete reference list. You can deal with what it has to say now. (More here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC365_1.html)

You should read the reviews of that second book on Amazon. It's kind of sad in a way really.

I don't care what the reviews say. I care about Lockley's science; not his worldview. I wish you could get past this.

Anyway, if this guy is so well respected, by all means defend him.

I don't yet need to defend his arguments as they apply to this thread because you haven't attacked his science; just his inapplicable worldview as revealed by Amazon book reviews.

I've only been able to find mention of unconformities below the Paleozoic layers.

You know, you're right. That giant angular unconformity occurs between the thick Grand Canyon Supergroup and the overlying Palaeozoic strata. Which brings up an even more interesting question: Which epic pre-Noahian flood deposited the Grand Canyon Supergroup? (The offset sediment package seen here: http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.gif) After all, it couldn't have accumulated over millions of years. Therefore, it must have all been deposited at once in some catastrophic deluge.
(By the way, there is still the issue of other nonconformities and disconformities in the Palaeozoic strata that has yet to be explained by the Flood geologists -- e.g. the boundaries of the Redwall Limestone. How do erosional surfaces form on strata that are burried beneath hundreds of feet of water?)

Brand addressed the footprints.

Sure, let's ignore all evidence to the contrary and assume Brand was right after all. His claims were used to support the notion that the footprints were deposited during the Flood. So what were all those little terrestrial creatures doing walking along the bottom of the floodplain as the waters rose above them?

The only mention of the raindrops I've found is from Lockley's second book. No one else says anything about that I've found. Do you have a source?

Beus SS and Morales M (editors). Grand Canyon Geology. London and New York: Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition, 2002.

And Googling turned up lots, too.

One of the creationist sites stated that only 1 in 50 have intact roots. Is this number incorrect?

I don't know what the correct number is. But let's assume that 1 in 50 is right. How do 1 in 50 lycopod trees grow in the middle of a global Flood?

 

[Remus]

You know, you're right. That giant angular unconformity occurs between the thick Grand Canyon Supergroup and the overlying Palaeozoic strata. Which brings up an even more interesting question: Which epic pre-Noahian flood deposited the Grand Canyon Supergroup? (The offset sediment package seen here: http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.gif) After all, it couldn't have accumulated over millions of years. Therefore, it must have all been deposited at once in some catastrophic deluge.

You're moving the goal post. Are you going to say that Creationist argue that these layers were laid down "all at once" now?

(By the way, there is still the issue of other nonconformities and disconformities in the Palaeozoic strata that has yet to be explained by the Flood geologists -- e.g. the boundaries of the Redwall Limestone. How do erosional surfaces form on strata that are burried beneath hundreds of feet of water?)

I see no issue here. In fact, I can see that this sort of thing would happen during the flood. It's not like the waters would come in and just sit there.

Sure, let's ignore all evidence to the contrary and assume Brand was right after all. His claims were used to support the notion that the footprints were deposited during the Flood. So what were all those little terrestrial creatures doing walking along the bottom of the floodplain as the waters rose above them?

Beus SS and Morales M (editors). Grand Canyon Geology. London and New York: Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition, 2002.
And Googling turned up lots, too.

Very well. I conceed that I can not come up with a plausable explination for the issues with this layer.

I don't know what the correct number is. But let's assume that 1 in 50 is right. How do 1 in 50 lycopod trees grow in the middle of a global Flood?

They didn't grow in the middle of a global Flood. I believe what the person was saying was that the roots were intact with the tree, not with the ground.

 

[Mallon]

You're moving the goal post. Are you going to say that Creationist argue that these layers were laid down "all at once" now?

Certainly, they couldn't have been deposited over a period of millions of years, could they? If not, then what makes you think that the layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup were deposited any differently than the Palaeozoic layers above, or over a longer period of time?

I see no issue here. In fact, I can see that this sort of thing would happen during the flood. It's not like the waters would come in and just sit there.

Right, they were raging and catastrophic -- so much so that they scarred and eroded through the sediments being deposited. But this bring us back to the question as to how the footprints and rainprints were preserved.

They didn't grow in the middle of a global Flood. I believe what the person was saying was that the roots were intact with the tree, not with the ground.

There have been all sorts of studies by local experts like Calder and Gibling that show the lycopods are rooted in paleosols. Which brings us to yet another question: how are paleosols deposited within the Flood paradigm?

 

[Remus]

I'm going to have to bow out on this one. Thanks for spending the time. You've given me a lot to think about.

 

[Mallon]

I'm going to have to bow out on this one. Thanks for spending the time. You've given me a lot to think about.

Likewise, Remus. Thanks for putting up with me for so long.

The floor's open to whoever else wants to jump in on these questions.

 

[Soldat_fur_Christ]

This is my first post on the Christian Forums, been surfing for the past week and decided to make an account.

Everyone here should read: "The Battle for the Beginning: Creation, Evolution, and the Bible" by John MacArthur.

The book makes sense, and reputes everything about evolution, and uses the Bible to back everything up. It can be had for about $13 from amazon or barnes and noble.

Another thing I've noticed about a minority of the people on this forum, if what Genesis says isn't true about the creation, then where do we begin to believe the Bible? I'm really curious about the "Christians" who accept any form of Macroevolution or Theistic Evolution, and why they do it. If we don't believe Genesis, then everything the Bible is based on is false.

Read that book, you guys will understand as it goes through everything using the Bible and explains how macroevolution isn't possible. It also explains a lot of what happened with Noah's Flood, and gives clear evidence of what happened during the flood.

 

[Mallon]

Welcommen to the forums, Soldat_fur_Christ.

I'm really curious about the "Christians" who accept any form of Macroevolution or Theistic Evolution, and why they do it. If we don't believe Genesis, then everything the Bible is based on is false.

Stick around; you'll learn a lot here (if you can take the heat).

 

[Willtor]

Hey Soldat_fur_Christ. Welcome to the Forums. You just presented a popular argument that is based on a misconception about TE's. Although there are TE's, no doubt, who don't hold the Bible as authoritative, many of us simply think that the literal historical interpretation of Genesis is based on a modern misconception. For such people, it doesn't make sense to ask why they reject a particular part of the Bible because they don't reject it.

The question is not, "why are people rejecting the Bible," but, "which interpretation is corrrect?"

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This is my first post on the Christian Forums, been surfing for the past week and decided to make an account.

Everyone here should read: "The Battle for the Beginning: Creation, Evolution, and the Bible" by John MacArthur.

The book makes sense, and reputes everything about evolution, and uses the Bible to back everything up. It can be had for about $13 from amazon or barnes and noble.

Another thing I've noticed about a minority of the people on this forum, if what Genesis says isn't true about the creation, then where do we begin to believe the Bible? I'm really curious about the "Christians" who accept any form of Macroevolution or Theistic Evolution, and why they do it. If we don't believe Genesis, then everything the Bible is based on is false.

Read that book, you guys will understand as it goes through everything using the Bible and explains how macroevolution isn't possible. It also explains a lot of what happened with Noah's Flood, and gives clear evidence of what happened during the flood.

you will find that people here have read a lot of books on the topic.

i'd recommend _Denying Evolution: creationis, scientism, and the nature of science_ by massimo pigliucci as a first read for understanding the creation-evolution-design debate.


reading reviews of:
The Battle for the Beginning
at amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/08...f=pd_bbs_1/102-8502438-2478522?_encoding=UTF8
hits this doozy

After giving many reasons why Evolutionism is antithetical to God and His design, the book spends a chapter on each of the days of creation. In each chapter the author shows why anything other than a literal six-day creation is impossible. In so doing he gives many wonderful examples of the wonders and marvels of creation. Much of the book is focused on refuting the arguments of Hugh Ross, the most prominent of the theistic evolutionists.

another reviewer writes

This is one of John's most outstanding books. I had to re-read many chapters because of its detail and complexity. The book is precise and challenges, yet satisfies the intellect. As one who has always believed in a young earth designed solely by a master designer, I was moved many times to tears when reminded of the intricacy of our universe and all its living creatures. The book brought me to my knees on several occasions to give thanks and recognition to our Creator for providing us with "unquestionable" proof of His existence and soverignty. John's examples of God's infallible creation, from the smallest insect to intelligent man is awesome and brilliantly researched. I believe this book is imperative to equip Christians against an increasing attack by those mocking and discrediting the Genesis account of creation. I have referred it to other Christians and believe it should be required reading in Christian schools for science studies.

the response is explained in yet another review

As an old earth creationist whose job it is to review young earth creationist material, I must say this is the worst young earth book I have ever read. The author takes a novel approach, in that he strictly uses emotion to argue for young earth creationism. The book is full of "God of the Gaps" type arguments. This type of argument says, "It's a complex organism, so only God could have created it." If something is beautiful, "Only God could have created it." If it cannot be explained, then "God did it." As a Christian, I agree with these statements, but they will never convince a non-Christian that "God did it." One gets tired of this emotional appeal very quickly.
Other young earth creationist books are wrong...but at least they try to present facts to back up their case. The facts in this book are few, and are easily explained.

if people come away with such wrong ideas as this from the book, neither money nor time is warranted in getting and reading it.

sorry, but unless you can offer deeper reasons for reading this book, i'm continuing on my TBR pile without it.

btw
lest you accuse me of not understanding the field i publish my reading lists
http://rmwilliamsjr.livejournal.com/181769.html#cutid1
and my reviews
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/bookreviews.html

i see no redeeming value to the McArthur book based on the amazon reviews.
but go ahead, detail why i should read it.
i'll listen.

 

[Mallon]

but go ahead, detail why i should read it.

In another thread, preferably.

 

[shernren]

Hello Soldat! Go read "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller, it's a good layman's intro to the problems with the creationist movements and the proper Christian response to evolutionism. I hope you won't mind the fact that we can be pretty rough on creationists, especially newer ones - sorry in advance. I pray that you will use your time here to learn about us and not preach to us.

["learn about us and not preach to us" ... lol, I sound like a caged animal in a zoo or something XD]

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In another thread, preferably.

good idea.
post your book review and justify your recommendation of why we should read it to its own thread.
baptism of fire.

 

[KerrMetric]

It can be had for about $13 from amazon or barnes and noble.

Why do I get the idea the key phrase here is 'be had'.

 

[vossler]

This is my first post on the Christian Forums, been surfing for the past week and decided to make an account.

Welcome Soldat, we look forward to seeing more of you in the coming days. BTW are you of German descent?

Everyone here should read: "The Battle for the Beginning: Creation, Evolution, and the Bible" by John MacArthur.

I have a number of his books and they're all great. Hard to Believe is book of his I recently read that I highly recommend. It talks about how it is difficult to believe everything in the Bible. The Bible is full of unbelieveable things, one of which is a six day creation. I haven't heard of this book you mentioned before, I'm definitely going to acquire it. Thanks!